Death Reasons of King Robb

[MikeDC]

On a larger scale, Greatjon Umber declaring Robb King in the North was a foolish move. It instantly robbed Robb (hehe) of potential allies in the south, most notably Stannis. Had Robb simply declared for Stannis after Renly's demise, they could've taken King's Landing together from two directions and crushed the Lannisters.

Totally! And I'd also blame Robb for that. I don't see that as blaming the victim either because by claiming a kingship, Robb was taking an obvious step beyond what he might legitimately seek. It cost him, but rightly so.

And it was totally avoidable. He could very easily have quietly put aside the claim later after all the cheering and bluster had died down. Insisting on it did nothing for himself or his nobles, as it wasn't giving them any new lands or opportunities.

[Mountain Tribesman]

Totally! And I'd also blame Robb for that. I don't see that as blaming the victim either because by claiming a kingship, Robb was taking an obvious step beyond what he might legitimately seek. It cost him, but rightly so.

And it was totally avoidable. He could very easily have quietly put aside the claim later after all the cheering and bluster had died down. Insisting on it did nothing for himself or his nobles, as it wasn't giving them any new lands or opportunities.

Yeah, it gave him no strategic advantage and no new allies: the only ally he hoped to make with his declaration of independence was Balon Greyjoy, to whom he offered an alliance with a new, independent Greyjoy kingdom, but Balon was too stupid to learn from his mistakes and decided to go solo once more, attacking his one potential ally.

Once declared King in the North, I think Robb should've gone for a full decentralization of the Seven Kingdoms: he should've sent proposals to Dorne, the Vale and the Reach, that all should work together to break free from the Iron Throne and be their own kingdoms as before Aegon the Conqueror, or at least temporarily from the Lannister-run Iron Throne.

[James Arryn]

Of course there's a relationship between Robb's choice of honours and what happened, but IMO:

1) that was his only mistake.

2) he paid an unbelievably high price for it.

3) it took several other people making mistakes for that situation to arise.

Really, for an untried kid, he blew the doors off expectations.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Yeah, it gave him no strategic advantage and no new allies: the only ally he hoped to make with his declaration of independence was Balon Greyjoy, to whom he offered an alliance with a new, independent Greyjoy kingdom, but Balon was too stupid to learn from his mistakes and decided to go solo once more, attacking his one potential ally.

The Ironborn are still independent while the North is once again part of the Iron Throne, it was not that stupid a decision. Especially as attacking Casterly Rock would of made Tywin focus most of his attention on him, look how that worked our for Robb.

Once declared King in the North, I think Robb should've gone for a full decentralization of the Seven Kingdoms: he should've sent proposals to Dorne, the Vale and the Reach, that all should work together to break free from the Iron Throne and be their own kingdoms as before Aegon the Conqueror, or at least temporarily from the Lannister-run Iron Throne.

I agree with this. When he was crowned King of the North he should of proclaimed Hoster King of the Riverlands. This would of sent a message to both Balon and Lyssa, who was partly scared of her son losing his birthright, that it was truly about equal independence rather than fighting over more land.

[James Arryn]

The decentralizing idea is interesting. Gonna have to think about that...in some ways it would reduce his command and control, and might force some people who would otherwise be neutral or pro into the other camp, etc...but it's interesting.

I don't think he could proclaim Hoster King, though...he could have maybe discreetly arranged for Riverlirds to do it and openly support it. Just semantics, I know, but IMO important ones.

[Hug0r]

By being a sixteen year old boy. He had to choose either love or honour and he picked love. Regardless of what hindrances people brought upon him it would still not change the fact that he fell in love and 'betrayed' Walder Frey.

[Mountain Tribesman]

The Ironborn are still independent while the North is once again part of the Iron Throne, it was not that stupid a decision. Especially as attacking Casterly Rock would of made Tywin focus most of his attention on him, look how that worked our for Robb.

For now that's true, mostly because of the Lannisters' decline. But even when the Ironborn were busy invading the North only, Tywin was hesitant about an alliance with the Ironborn. In the long term, Balon should've realized that if he defeated Robb for Tywin, giving Tywin time to deal with the Baratheons, eventually it would once more be everyone in the Seven Kingdoms against the Ironborn, and the Greyjoys would be defeated once again. Then of course Balon died, and was replaced with his insane brother, who attacked the Reach too. But I'm very curious to see what Victarion will do in Slaver Bay.

I agree with this. When he was crowned King of the North he should of proclaimed Hoster King of the Riverlands. This would of sent a message to both Balon and Lyssa, who was partly scared of her son losing his birthright, that it was truly about equal independence rather than fighting over more land.

Yes, even if Hoster Tully (and then Edmure) were to be kings in name only, Robb's influence being foremost. And I'm certain Dorne would have loved nothing more than freedom from the Iron Throne.

[DavosSeaworthy]

I agree that plans had been made to assassinate Robb long before Jaime had been captured. But I'm arguing that Tywin would not execute the plan until Jaime was safely out of Riverrun.

When Tywin received news that Jaime had escaped the plan (previously prepared mind you) began to be put in motion, and when Tywin learned that Jaime was in Harrenhal, he gave the go ahead.

Nah, Tywin was going to go through with it regardless of where Jamie was. He basically had one shot to get it done. Say Jamie doesn't get released and the wedding occurs, Robb and company walk out of there breathing and head up North, because Bolton and Frey are waiting for the Tywin seal of approval so his Jamie doesn't wind up with his head lopped off, break the Ironmen, recapture Winterfell and dig in, all the while having Jamie shipped up to Winterfell as a hostage. Now Tywin has one Stark girl hostage, the other missing, and his heir in a place that is impossible to defeat under normal circumstances. Roose wouldn't betray Robb with the rest of the Northern force in play, he'd get killed pretty quick, so he would quell his ambitions and lay low. The Frey's would have to accept that they aren't going to get their perfect revange scenerio and settle for having their grandchild be heir to Riverrun. In the end all of this would be a terrible situation for Tywin to be in, he just moved his main force down to Kings Landing to save it from Stannis, the Riverlords have some time to provision their keeps or flee north with the Northren host. Riverrun and the Twins would be relatively safe since they are two hard castles to seige, so now Tywin has to try and root out those castles, which now Walder has too much invested in both to give up on them. Basically it would create one massive headache for Tywin that he would never do, he helped plan the Red Wedding well before Jamie was free. His options were end the rebellion now and sacrifice my son, or hold on waiting for another opportunity that may never come again, he was going to end the rebellion, he could always have named another Lannister heir from his side.

[shearstone]

Tyrion's chapter at the end of GoT already showed that Tywin had given up on Jaime once he was captured, Tywin loved Jaime but he was a practical man and so continued on like he was dead so his choices weren't marred in thinking what they would do to Jaime if he acted. He was plotting Robb's death regardless of Jaime the main point is however without Theon, Roose wouldn't have gone for it as why would he? He was a trusted Stark bannerman if he kills Robb Winterfell would know and the thousands of men up north would slit his throat the instant he comes north and god help him if the same leadership is in control of Moat Callin... Walder Frey is another matter entirely but even if he kills him for a broken oath It will only really kill Robb it won't kill the war as long as Winterfell stands.

[MikeDC]

The decentralizing idea is interesting. Gonna have to think about that...in some ways it would reduce his command and control, and might force some people who would otherwise be neutral or pro into the other camp, etc...but it's interesting.

I don't think he could proclaim Hoster King, though...he could have maybe discreetly arranged for Riverlirds to do it and openly support it. Just semantics, I know, but IMO important ones.

The Riverlands seem, geographically to be the biggest beneficiaries of a united kingdom, since they seem to have a hard time defending from attacks on all sides. By throwing in with the Crown, they get some measure of protection because any invasion would be breaking the King's Peace.

If they're just independent, or even pledged to a King in the North, they've got foreign enemies with no ties on poorly defended borders.

To me, that made the River Lord's pledge to Robb even sillier than the Northern Lords. The North men could pack up and hide behind Moat Cailin and be relatively safe and remote from the rest of Westeros. The Riverlands not so much. They really should have known better, and Robb should have known that that particular portion of his Kingdom was untenable without either conquering the rest of Westeros or agreeing to a common overlord.

[James Arryn]

The Riverlands seem, geographically to be the biggest beneficiaries of a united kingdom, since they seem to have a hard time defending from attacks on all sides. By throwing in with the Crown, they get some measure of protection because any invasion would be breaking the King's Peace.

If they're just independent, or even pledged to a King in the North, they've got foreign enemies with no ties on poorly defended borders.

To me, that made the River Lord's pledge to Robb even sillier than the Northern Lords. The North men could pack up and hide behind Moat Cailin and be relatively safe and remote from the rest of Westeros. The Riverlands not so much. They really should have known better, and Robb should have known that that particular portion of his Kingdom was untenable without either conquering the rest of Westeros or agreeing to a common overlord.

That's an understandable geo-strat assessment, but not one which I find entirely convincing.

When analyzed in isolation, the RL's lack of huge static defence points which GRRM loves to invent does lead to insecurity, I agree. But the kind of defence point that the Riverlands have in abundance take on a different nature when externally supported. The only advantage all the river crossings afford them in a way which exceeds the likes of the Prince's Pass or w/e is the sheer number of them. Tat kind of, forgive me, fluidity in defence can look for an amazingly repeatable ability to redefine your front Ned redeploy at your choosing. If no one else is coming to help, sure, that can just mean attrition. But if strength is coming, you have many options. You can spread out and allow the enemy to funnel towards a crossing where the external strength will engage with you to his rear. You can keep making him engage in forced crossings, generally much more costly on the attacking force, bleeding him while your ally is approaching. You can redefine your front obliquely, offering your enemy the choice of being caught between you and your ally or choosing his own front, hence giving you time. Etc.

It's not as ideal as the kind of Gates of the Moon scenario the books love, but it's workable. I don't think it was as strategically preclusive as you do.

[devilrob6]

I think Roose putting a sword in Robb's heart might have something to do with why he died. Such actions are often lethal.

[Ser Lady Stark Martell]

I've posted before that I blame Great Jon for his death. He declared Robb the King in the North. That made him need the Freys to his cause. That made Catelyn bring up the marriage pact.

But besides the Great Jon, there's also Robb to blame here. Of course, he wouldn't even have to approach the Freys if he had chosen to join Stannis' cause instead of becoming tKitN, but that's only "if". Another "if" would be if he hadn't married Jeyne, because then there would be no betrayal, no broken pact, no Red Wedding.

One thing led to another, starting with Great Jon, ending with Robb choosing to break the marriage pact and thus bringing the Red Wedding into life.

[devilrob6]

DIdn't they already pass the twins when Robb was declared KIng in the North? I seem to remember that the Riverland Lords were there as well. And all were very eager to accept the Greatjon's proposal. So i don't see why the blame should be all his.

They needed the Frey's either way. They had to cross the twins and needed his soldiers. And the marriage pact would not have been a problem if Robb would have kept his vow. That's how he lost the Frey's.

Another deciding factor is that Robb lost the North while fighting in the Riverlands. Sending Theon to the iron islands was a stupid mistake and he should have listened to Catelyn. Theon was a hostage for very good reasons. Robb could not have forseen that Balon would attack the North and especially not that Theon would take Winterfell. But Theon was the wrong man to negotiate with Balon, since Balon has an authority position over Theon. It's a mistake that cascaded into disaster for Robb.

Third factor is losing the Karstarks. Catelyn and Rickard Karstark are the main reasons for that.

And then there is Roose Bolton who got a lot of freedom to do what he liked, commanding a big part of Robb's army and holding Harrenhal. He has been undermining Robb's cause, send Northern armies into a trap, plotted with the Lannisters and the Freys and held enough people behind in the North so Ramsay could take the Hornwood lands. He has been dismantling and weakening Robb's power from the inside and eventually is the man that kills Robb himself.

So all in all I think it's rediculous to blame the Greatjon for what happened to Robb. We might as well blame his parents for giving birth to him. Becoming King in the North was a mistake, but so much things happened afterwards, so many mistakes, bad decisions, betrayal ec, There are many moments where things could have taken another turn.

The big lesson from the story: "Starks should not go south of the Neck and definately not play the game of Thrones"

[Skagosi High Chef]

I am going to take a different route here. The blame is all Robb's but for no other reason than he was not a good king. He was King of the North and Trident, or riverlands. He was Walder Frey's king. Yes, he broke an agreement with Walder Frey, in the end though, that is a King's prerogative, especially in war time. He had made amends with Frey before the Red Wedding, Frey had accepted this consolation. Robb should have tolerated no disrespect from Frey, he should have had a KG type of protection apparatus. At the first display of insolence from Frey, directed at either himself, his queen, or mother, he should have had Frey arrested and given the Twins to a cooperative Frey heir.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

King Robb Stark is dead?

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

I don't know how much of a solemn vow it was. It was surely an agreement Robb broke. I feel the Freys simply exaggerate the size of the insult as a way to justify what they ended up doing to further themselves. Robb offered to make it right and they could have gotten another 10 weddings out of the deal, all through the north. Its obvious they're just using it as an excuse to explain away what they did. Notice in the books nobody but the Freys claim what Robb did is some horrific slight. Not even the Lannisters. Robb clearly broke his word but its not even in the same arena as what the Freys did. The only people to compare the two things are the Freys and forum users.

[Gneisenau]

Robb didn't have to marry Jeyne, and if he did, he shouldn't have slept with her in the first place.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Worth noting that Roose kept his best men in the Dreadfort when Robb called the banners, whatever happened he was gonna use the situation to increase his own power and influence.

The buck has to stop somewhere If Robb had gone ahead with the Frey marriage he'd probably be the main contender for the IT as of the end of DwD, He didn't and therefore he brought his fate upon himself, his mother, his soldiers, his family, and the North. Such a simple thing--keep your word, especially when it's a solemn vow.

Not for the actual Throne, I think. Any farther South and Randyll Tarly and Garlan Tyrell would've beat him black and blue.

Yeah, it gave him no strategic advantage and no new allies: the only ally he hoped to make with his declaration of independence was Balon Greyjoy, to whom he offered an alliance with a new, independent Greyjoy kingdom, but Balon was too stupid to learn from his mistakes and decided to go solo once more, attacking his one potential ally.

Balons plan was sound. Holding Moat Cailin stops land invasions, the Iron Fleet defends at Sea.

I am going to take a different route here. The blame is all Robb's but for no other reason than he was not a good king. He was King of the North and Trident, or riverlands. He was Walder Frey's king. Yes, he broke an agreement with Walder Frey, in the end though, that is a King's prerogative, especially in war time. He had made amends with Frey before the Red Wedding, Frey had accepted this consolation. Robb should have tolerated no disrespect from Frey, he should have had a KG type of protection apparatus. At the first display of insolence from Frey, directed at either himself, his queen, or mother, he should have had Frey arrested and given the Twins to a cooperative Frey heir.

Kings cant just do what they like, they're ruled by their subjects as much as they rule them. "All men must keep their word, Kings most of all." Leave the excuse making to men like Barristan Selmy.

[Skagosi High Chef]

Kings cant just do what they like, they're ruled by their subjects as much as they rule them. "All men must keep their word, Kings most of all." Leave the excuse making to men like Barristan Selmy.

To a certain extent I agree with you but a king has certain privilege and demands a certain amount of respect regardless of the situation. I won't use real life historical examples but imagine a Targ king in this situation, or Robert, one of the old kings, or even Ned. A king can change his mind if he believes it is in the best interest of his subjects, realm, and monarchy. That's Robb's line that "...kings most of all," which is honorable but not like someone who is a king. In this instance a king broke a marriage pact but was seeking to make amends, Walder accepted his offer, yes to do what he did, but officially he accepted and was not granted any special powers. Just because a king broke an agreement with you doesn't mean you can treat the king like a punk, if you can he is no king. When Walder insulted the king, his head was on the line and a more proactive king would not have tolerated his behavior and acted on it.