Was proclaming Robb the King in the North a mistake?

[Sunandspear]

I love that part in A Clash of Kings where the Greatjon makes his speech and everyone starts shouting 'The King in the North'. I cheered along the Northern and Riverland lords. It was an emotionally uplifting moment for the Northeners and a right thing to do if we take into consideration only the honorablness in it. Robb and co. didn't know that Joffrey was a Lannister bastard and in their eyes he was the rightful king. For obvious reasons they couldn't bend the knee to him. It left only Stannis and Renly, but joining them would make Robb a dishonorable traitor, because he thought they didn't have a right to the throne. So he went along with his bannermen and accepted the title of the King, choosing the only option that seemed both reasonable and honorable.

But was it the right thing to do in terms of politics and common sense? Putting honor aside, wouldn't it be smarter if Robb joined his forces with Renly who had Highgarden behind him or at least with Stannis? And if he did, would it work or would it make his bannermen lose their respect for him?

[Artos Cold]

Robb is a Stark, the northerners would follow him to hell and back. 

Honestly, the smartest thing to do would be to listen to Stevron Frey. Wait and watch, let your enemies destroy each other and either swear fealty to the winner or destroy them now that they are weakened. 

[joluoto2]

Yes, very much. Closed the door for Alliances with any of the Baratheon bros. And if he really wanted to secede he certainly didn't used the tactics for that (i.e. abandon the Riverlands and fall back North to defend the borders), but of course becoming King of the Trident was an even bigger mistake than becoming King in the North.

[FC_Lymond]

Of course it was. 

 

The North (and Dorne) already have a large degree of autonomy.  KL asks little of them.  More importantly, there was no credible threat to that independence. 

 

And with Winter coming it makes the decision ten times as bad. 

[redtree]

It's a stupid decision and make them both a rebel and traitor too, their number is middling at best and they hope to win from highgarden/stormland army while still had to fight the westerland first. 

[none-for-joffrey]

yes, for all the reasons already stated.

 

but it seems it was also an inevitable event. 3 Stark rulers/heirs slain through 'treacherous' means by the southern king within the last 20 years, its only natural they would have at some point just had enough of the iron throne and decided to secede.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Does anyone really think is was a good idea? You can't really blame the Lords for coming up with the idea, and you can't blame Robb for what happened, he really couldn't have refused and had no other obvious option (Stevron having already been booed by his lords.

Though obviously if someone had sent certain letters when it made logical sense to and not several months later then he would have had another option.

[mediterraneo]

I'm generally ok with the remarks of the difficulties the decision put on Robb's diplomatical position.

I want to add: that situation also weakened Robb's position inside the North. When Greatjon wanted him to name him head of his vanguard, Robb was in control. On the kingmaking decision, Greatjon was in control, showing that the Young Wolf could be armwresteld into things.

Karstark later did something similar, killing prisoners to force Robb's policies in the direction he wanted.

Cheers...

[redtree]

Does anyone really think is was a good idea? You can't really blame the Lords for coming up with the idea, and you can't blame Robb for what happened, he really couldn't have refused and had no other obvious option (Stevron having already been booed by his lords.

Though obviously if someone had sent certain letters when it made logical sense to and not several months later then he would have had another option.

Thing is all of Robb's faction thinks that it was a great idea, first he was only king in the north but then the riverlords crowned him as the king in the trident too. I wonder if one of them ever think oh no this is a bad idea but couldn't speak because afraid of the traitor label. 

It would've been embarassing to if Robb back out and say thanks but no thanks considering that he was crowned in front of everyone, he would've seen as craven

[devilish]

It was a massive mistake. If Robb won the war and everything was in his favour than well and good, however at that point it was pretty stupid to do so. You can't claim to be king when there are enough Lords out there who can rise an army which is much bigger than yours

[Swordofmorning]

Totally, isn't it clear enough?

Making alliances would've been very much easier if he hadn't been declared king.

Also, its a hollow title. The North is like  a sepearate  kingdom in all but name and the Starks are practically the ultimate rulers there becoz there is not much interaction between the north and the rest of the 7K.

And if Robb had joined with either Stannis or Renly, the northerners would've followed him anyway.

 

PS - I too love that scene with that speech by Greatjon and everyone shouting KITN!! KITN!! KITN!! IIRC, it was not in ACOK but was Cat's last chapter in AGOT

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

I love that part in A Clash of Kings where the Greatjon makes his speech and everyone starts shouting 'The King in the North'. I cheered along the Northern and Riverland lords. It was an emotionally uplifting moment for the Northeners and a right thing to do if we take into consideration only the honorablness in it. Robb and co. didn't know that Joffrey was a Lannister bastard and in their eyes he was the rightful king. For obvious reasons they couldn't bend the knee to him. It left only Stannis and Renly, but joining them would make Robb a dishonorable traitor, because he thought they didn't have a right to the throne. So he went along with his bannermen and accepted the title of the King, choosing the only option that seemed both reasonable and honorable.

But was it the right thing to do in terms of politics and common sense? Putting honor aside, wouldn't it be smarter if Robb joined his forces with Renly who had Highgarden behind him or at least with Stannis? And if he did, would it work or would it make his bannermen lose their respect for him?

What Robb should have told them is that his father Ned fought to put the Baratheons on the Throne and before Ned was arrested he supported Stannis for the Throne and that Robb will do the same. If Robb had supported Stannis (or even Renly) it would have been a much different outcome.

 

[Good Guy Garlan]

What Robb should have told them is that his father Ned fought to put the Baratheons on the Throne and before Ned was arrested he supported Stannis for the Throne and that Robb will do the same. If Robb had supported Stannis (or even Renly) it would have been a much different outcome.

 

I wonder how different, though. I guess Robb and Edmure would've still kept Tywin busy in the Riverlands as Stannis attacked King's Landing. Maybe a difference would've been that Robb doesn't send Theon back to Pyke, because if Robb's not a king, then he can't really offer to give Balon a crown. 

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

I wonder how different, though. I guess Robb and Edmure would've still kept Tywin busy in the Riverlands as Stannis attacked King's Landing. Maybe a difference would've been that Robb doesn't send Theon back to Pyke, because if Robb's not a king, then he can't really offer to give Balon a crown. 

That and they could have co-ordinated with Stannis.

They would not have had to make a push for King's Landing as their endpoint. If they focus their efforts west towards the Westerlands, the Lannisters could not defend both the Westerlands and the Crownlands, effectively splitting the Lannister forces.

And there is the possibility that with part of the Stormlands, the Entire of the North and Riverlands that Stannis now has the clout to ally with Dorne. Dorne will not be happy that the Reach is going to have so much influence with Renly and might be moved to support Stannis.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Of course it was a mistake.

He should have kept his options open, declaring that he had more pressing issues to deal with and that, perhaps, the various claimants might meanwhile prove why they are worthy of his support, like by helping him out in the Riverlands for examble.

[Orphalesion]

*smiles* YES!

It was pretty much just Umber and Karstark manipulating an inexperienced teenager into his doom out of some mistaken thirst for "glory".

[ShadowCat Rivers]

*smiles* YES!

It was pretty much just Umber and Karstark manipulating an inexperienced teenager into his doom out of some mistaken thirst for "glory".

Well no, I disagree (with the second clause apparently, everyone agrees that it was a mistake).

Umber expressed his feelings without giving much thought to the current political circumstances and according necessities. It was a "solution" that overrode the dilemma of whom to choose as a king in a way that he understood as "honourable" but it also contained truth in that there is a general feeling of being a separate "proto-national", if I can use this expression, entity (much like Dorne), that didn't have much to gain and maybe have more to lose by being attached to the Iron Throne. In different times, it might have worked; but it was a disaster to proclaim independence when said throne holds your own as hostages; it's even more a disaster when you decide to attach lands that are not defendable and they are not, historically, tied to your domain. It would be an entirely different story if there weren't any hostages and all they had to do was fortify Moat Cailin and sit behind it (and also watch the shores).

But Umber was not pushing an agenda and therefore not "manipulating". If there was a manipulative element in his speech, that would the "appeal to emotion" argumentative technique that was (unintended, I think) inherent there, but that, IMO, would be addressed to the rest of the lords, not Robb himself; actually, I think that Karstark just bought into that at that time, especially as it was in accordance to his emotional state. The two of them, then, created a certain momentum of persuation (of emotional nature) that applies to masses.

[Lord Lannister]

It pretty much limited Robb's options to surrender or fight to the death. None of the claimants to the Iron Throne were ever going to recognize a breakaway faction.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Yes, very much. Closed the door for Alliances with any of the Baratheon bros. And if he really wanted to secede he certainly didn't used the tactics for that (i.e. abandon the Riverlands and fall back North to defend the borders), but of course becoming King of the Trident was an even bigger mistake than becoming King in the North.

Closed the completely nonexistent door, you meant. Neither Renly nor Stannis weren't interested in any alliances, only in fealty. And that would still be an option for the King in the North: Torrhen bent the knee and Robb could, too. Sadly, he blinked and the Baratheon self-destruct mechanism went off.

[Maxxine]

I think the mistake was not naming him King in the North, but including the Riverlands in his dominion. I understand he did not really have much of a choice but to include the Riverlands but still. I don't think anyone would have cared about the North having independence as they are kind of independent anyway. And even if they did care, you could have gone back to Moat Caitlin and successfully defended from there.

But the best thing to do would have been to make common cause with Renly before Robb had ever been proclaimed King in the North. Renly and the North together could have easily overcome the Iron Throne and Stannis. And then I think the North could have gotten its independence. Maybe not completely, but at least in the way Dorne is psuedo-independent.