Failure Analysis: Robb Stark

[lordstewie]

balon has already rebelled and was defeated.
He has only a son, but a prisoner
potentially can only make raids also because the number of men of the Iron Islands is not very relevant, and in a battle he would not escape
lack even cavalry
You can only benefit from some agreement that allows him to occupy some territory

[Starfell]

15 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

But that is not really true. Balon actually tried for an alliance in ASOS which may have even been accepted had Tywin not already made agreements with Roose and Walder. He had done nothing to make himself an enemy of the Crown.

 

Balon attacking the North made more logical sense from his perspective as it would result in far less casualties meaning that he would actually be able to defend his gains.

And I think people seem to miss the point about the Ironborn, it was not so much independence but a return to the 7 kingdoms when the Ironborn could attack smaller kingdoms and get away with it. Westeros being split into three kingdoms with them being far, far less powerful than the other two does not really gain them a lot. They would still be in a similar position to were they are now.

He declared himself a King, that's high treason and a de facto declaration of war. Just like it was last time he did it.

Then he tried to ally himself with Tywin, a man in whose eyes Balon is a vassal of Joffrey and in no position to be making demands like that. Oh, and he's already attacked Lannisport once before, Tywin is hardly going to be positively inclined towards Balon. He's not going to be lenient to someone who has tried to rebel against the Iron Throne twice, not when it's a Throne that his House now controls. So Balon really ought to have anticipated his alliance offer being turned down.

If he'd wanted to return to reaving and remain part of Westeros then he could have done, but he specifically declared himself King with all that that implies, stupidly gambling his entire Kingdom on the assumption that Tywin "Rains-of-Castamere-was-willing-to-burn-Duskendale-to-the-ground" Lannister was going to be in a forgiving mood.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, Starfell said:

He declared himself a King, that's high treason and a de facto declaration of war. Just like it was last time he did it.

Last time he did that he attacked Lannisport, Seagard and other places on the West coast. This time he was careful to only attack the Crown's enemies.

Tywin had shown that he could forgive the Tyrells and the Reachlords who not only supported another King but were actually starving Kings Landing.

He had been shown to forgive the Stormlords and Narrow Sea Island lords who actually fought against him at the Battle of Blackwater.

Balon had nothing he could not be forgiven for. Attacking the Westerlands would have changed that.

Just now, Starfell said:

Then he tried to ally himself with Tywin, a man in whose eyes Balon is a vassal of Joffrey and in no position to be making demands like that.

He was negotiating peace. I don't know about you but in my experience negotiating usually starts from a high price and a compromise is made.

Some of the Small Council were actually in favour of this alliance.

Lord Redwyne laughed. "What is there north of the Neck that any sane man would want? If Greyjoy will trade swords and sails for stone and snow, I say do it, and count ourselves lucky."

"Truly," agreed Mace Tyrell. "That's what I would do. Let King Balon finish the northmen whilst we finish Stannis."

 

Now we know that Tywin did not need to agree to this as Roose and Walder were offering to do what Balon was but it is clear that he had little problem with them as he was discussing both Balon and Theon as possible choices to marry Cersei.

Just now, Starfell said:

If he'd wanted to return to reaving and remain part of Westeros then he could have done, but he specifically declared himself King with all that that implies, stupidly gambling his entire Kingdom on the assumption that Tywin "Rains-of-Castamere-was-willing-to-burn-Duskendale-to-the-ground" was going to be in a forgiving mood.

A forgiving mood for what? The Ironborn had not struck against Tywin. There was little to forgive.

[Tijgy]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

(...)

If Robb was so bothered about the law he would have accepted his father being arrested for treason and would never have rebelled.

Robb is quite capable of ignoring 'the law' when it suits him. This was not about law but his pride.

Yeah, it was not about the fact Rickard two children  

"The blood of children?" Robb pointed at the corpses. "How old were they? Twelve, thirteen? Squires."

"Die fighting, yes. Tion Frey and Willem Lannister gave up their swords in the Whispering Wood. They were captives, locked in a cell, asleep, unarmed . . . boys. Look at them!"

To be honest, I can actually not understand how Cat's and Rickard's actions are comparable. The first one did not involve (directly) any murder of children, the second one did. The actions of Rickard are worse than Cat so yeah he should have been punished harder.

Also it would actually show the murder of (hostage) children is not really morally wrong according to Robb. So it was not morally wrong of Theon to murder his little brothers (what probably also played a role in Robb's decision to execute Karstark). 

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

5 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

Yeah, it was not about the fact Rickard two children  

 

It had little to do with them being children. He said himself that they could easily have been killed in the battlefield.

"In battle I might have slain Tion and Willem myself, but this was no battle. They were asleep in their beds, naked and unarmed, in a cell where I put them. Rickard Karstark killed more than a Frey and a Lannister. He killed my honor. I shall deal with him at dawn."

He executed Rickard because of his honour, not because of the law. Robb is a King and he dictates the law, just like he had one of Rickards men, who killed no one, executed as well.

You can argue that it was honourable but the fact is he did have a choice in the matter. Edmure, who also had men killed in the attack and who's lands it was committed on, was advising leniency.

He could have been lenient, he chose not to be and some of those Karstark men with Roose were involved at the Red Wedding.

[Tijgy]

3 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

It had little to do with them being children. He said himself that they could easily have been killed in the battlefield.

"In battle I might have slain Tion and Willem myself, but this was no battle. They were asleep in their beds, naked and unarmed, in a cell where I put them. Rickard Karstark killed more than a Frey and a Lannister. He killed my honor. I shall deal with him at dawn."

He executed Rickard because of his honour, not because of the law. Robb is a King and he dictates the law, just like he had one of Rickards men, who killed no one, executed as well.

You can argue that it was honourable but the fact is he did have a choice in the matter. Edmure, who also had men killed in the attack and who's lands it was committed on, was advising leniency.

He could have been lenient, he chose not to be and some of those Karstark men with Roose were involved at the Red Wedding.

And first he says: 

"The blood of children?" Robb pointed at the corpses. "How old were they? Twelve, thirteen? Squires."

"Die fighting, yes. Tion Frey and Willem Lannister gave up their swords in the Whispering Wood. They were captives, locked in a cell, asleep, unarmed . . . boys. Look at them!"

"In battle I might have slain Tion and Willem myself, but this was no battle. They were asleep in their beds, naked and unarmed, in a cell where I put them. Rickard Karstark killed more than a Frey and a Lannister. He killed my honor. I shall deal with him at dawn."

When Ned speaks about killing children, he mention it is vile, unspeakeable and dishonorable.

So it is not impossible to say for Robb by killing those children Rickard killed his honor because they were unarmed children in a cel. And I might be wrong and I can sadly not look it up but I believe Robb starts first emphasizes first the fact it is murder, they are boys and starts then only to talk about treason but I can be wrong of course.

However the whole chapter starts with this: 

She stood at Robb's left hand beside the high seat, and for a moment felt almost as if she were looking down at her own dead, at Bran and Rickon. These boys had been much older, but death had shrunken them. Naked and wet, they seemed such little things, so still it was hard to remember them living.

(...)

Robb had donned his crown before coming to the hall, and the bronze shone darkly in the torchlight. Shadows hid his eyes as he looked upon the dead. Does he see Bran and Rickon as well? 

And this gives the indication he also might do it because he identifies those boys with his brothers and tries to punish Theon by punishing Rickard? 

I just believe you are completely do Robb an injustice by referring to the fact he only executed Rickard this because of his pride while in that chapter multiple reasons can be addressed like the fact he considered it murder of children (which Robb says literally) and the possible fact he identifies them with Bran and Rickon whose murder until now is going unpunished. In my interpretation he says Rickard killed his honor because he killed those two unarmed children who were in his protection. So I actually do not understand what this has to do with pride.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

4 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

And this gives the indication he also might do it because he identifies those boys with his brothers and tries to punish Theon by punishing Rickard? 

That is a good catch. And you are right that probably plays a big part in Robb's decision to come down hard on Rickard.

No one is saying that it was a dishonourable act or that it was morally wrong but that it was a failing for Robb the ruler, not necessarily Robb the man. He knew what would happpen to the Karstark foot and other Karstarks should he execute Rickard and he did so anyway.

4 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

I just believe you are completely do Robb an injustice by referring to the fact he only executed Rickard this because of his pride

Robb says so. It was his honour more than them being children. It was also, as you say, his own personal grieving over his own brothers. But that still does not make it a good decision.

[Hugorfonics]

15 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

lol no he didnt. This is perhaps the dumbest part of you argument. Rob had no such jurisdiction at that time just like Robin did not despite also being the Grandson of Hoster.

 

He didnt demand ridiculous stuff. Robb was asking him to turn traitor to the Crown. In return Walder gave him more men than any of his Northern vassals did.

Did Robb's grandfather demand ridiculous stuff when he demanded a marriage alliance to fight with the Rebels?

Did Robb's ancestor Cregan Stark demand ridiculous stuff when he demanded a marriage alliance to fight in the Dance of the Dragons.

Walder is only following the example of Robb's own family.

 

 lol no he would not. It would have been too late

 

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Though I fail to see how the suffering that Hornwood and Karstark has to do with Walder.

Kings are the law. Robb could have shown leniency to one of his most loyal Houses like he did to the Greatjon.

If Robb was so bothered about the law he would have accepted his father being arrested for treason and would never have rebelled.

Robb is quite capable of ignoring 'the law' when it suits him. This was not about law but his pride.

Robert says jump Brynden leaves, Robb says jump all the Riverlords follow, because their goal was the same, free Riverrun.

That's what Robb demanded. Its Walders duty to free Hoster, as he's a lordling. Robb and his ancestors are High Lords and Wardens. Walder completely elevated himself, and snubbed Hoster by making pacts.

Too late? Would Jaime raise the castle? Robb was coming south.

The suffering is relevant because Frey isn't the only family that bled.

It was mainly about pride, its a Stark thing

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

What choice did they have. They were owed Robb's life.

wow. Robb did not owe his life, he's not Jaqen. And even if murder was justifiable, the other hundreds of deaths were not. Frey done bad. There's not enough paint in the world to whitewash their crime.

[David Selig]

It is a combo of him being 16 and not ready for such responsibility, and him being unlucky.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Robert says jump Brynden leaves, Robb says jump all the Riverlords follow, because their goal was the same, free Riverrun.

All the Riverlords? Robb was not in contact with any of them bar the Freys. Once Riverrun would surrender the game was up. Why do you think Robb was in such a rush?

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's what Robb demanded. Its Walders duty to free Hoster, as he's a lordling. Robb and his ancestors are High Lords and Wardens. Walder completely elevated himself, and snubbed Hoster by making pacts.

It is not Walder's duty to free Hoster from the Crown.

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Too late? Would Jaime raise the castle? Robb was coming south.

Ask Robb. He was the one who was worried about being too late.

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The suffering is relevant because Frey isn't the only family that bled.

And? They agreed a price for their support, they are owed that price.

If everyone else at your place of work are happy to not be paid should you also be happy with your employer ignoring your contract?

What the other Riverlords are happy about is immaterial to the Promise that Robb agreed with the Freys.

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

wow. Robb did not owe his life, he's not Jaqen. And even if murder was justifiable, the other hundreds of deaths were not. Frey done bad. There's not enough paint in the world to whitewash their crime.

Who is trying to whitewash it? The Red Wedding was an awful act. They wanted revenge for being backstabbed by Robb and took it they only way they could.

[chrisdaw]

He played ball with Walder Frey. He should not have let Catelyn speak for him and if he could not win his loyalty with less reasonable demands he should have devised a way to take the twins by force. Agreeing to marry a Frey and to marry Arya too was grossly over the top.

He shouldn't have let Theon go home without any insurance. As there was no insurance to be had he shouldn't have let Theon go home. He shouldn't have trusted Balon would do what he wished, he'd never met the man to take his measure.

He should not have executed Karstark, his leadership was not so strong to be able to afford indulging his own honour like that.

He should not have fucked around in the West. Relieve RR if it suits (though it might have held), then work out how to defeat Tywin and march on KL.

Jon will learn from all these mistakes when he marches South, and wins.

[Hugorfonics]

8 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

All the Riverlords? Robb was not in contact with any of them bar the Freys. Once Riverrun would surrender the game was up. Why do you think Robb was in such a rush?

 

No way. Riverrun surrendered and Bracken And Blackwood were still pro Stark, it didn't last long but there were no Starks then, he was in a rush to save Ned.

 

11 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

It is not Walder's duty to free Hoster from the Crown.

Of course it is, I remember some riverlord that supported Aerys. Him and all civilians were massacred. 

 

13 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

And? They agreed a price for their support, they are owed that price.

If everyone else at your place of work are happy to not be paid should you also be happy with your employer ignoring your contract?

What the other Riverlords are happy about is immaterial to the Promise that Robb agreed with the Freys.

Says who? Welcome to Westeros. Where Janos Slynts promised Harrenhall, Robert will invade the Summer isles, Tywin will give up Gregor.

Shit changes, people lie. Walder was an asshole for making a treaty, Robb was one for breaking it.

16 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

Who is trying to whitewash it? The Red Wedding was an awful act. They wanted revenge for being backstabbed by Robb and took it they only way they could.

Why's that the only way? And it's so stupid! I mean, they sure laid down that fly swatter but they made enimies of every one. The entire north wants vengeance and the south is filled with distrust, very bad P.R

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

No way. Riverrun surrendered and Bracken And Blackwood were still pro Stark, it didn't last long but there were no Starks then, he was in a rush to save Ned.

The Bracken and Blackwood lands had fallen.

"With Lord Blackwood gone, Raventree fell at once, and Lady Whent yielded Harrenhal for want of men to defend it. Ser Gregor burnt out the Pipers and the Brackens …"

What little resistance there was was hold up in Riverrun. Once that had fallen the Riverlands would be finished.

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

 

Of course it is, I remember some riverlord that supported Aerys. Him and all civilians were massacred. 

Exactly. Walder was not the first Riverlord to have divided loyalties. Goodbrooks, Mootens and Darrys all put their oaths to the Crown above those to the Tullys.

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

 

Says who? Welcome to Westeros. Where Janos Slynts promised Harrenhall, Robert will invade the Summer isles, Tywin will give up Gregor.

And?

I am not really sure your point here. Walder has a right to be aggrieved with Robb's betrayal just like the Manderlys and the rest of the North are allowed to feel the same about the Freys.

If you are saying promises are meaningless in Westeros then fair enough. The promise Guest Rights should be no different.

 

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

Shit changes, people lie. Walder was an asshole for making a treaty, Robb was one for breaking it.

How was Walder an asshole for making a treaty that would make him a Rebel to the Throne?

While he is certainly an asshole, he was not for asking for a price to rebel against the King of Westeros.

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

Why's that the only way? And it's so stupid! I mean, they sure laid down that fly swatter but they made enimies of every one. The entire north wants vengeance and the south is filled with distrust, very bad P.R

Oh my god! Bad PR!!!

And yeah, I agree that it was over the top but vengeance often is.

[Tijgy]

7 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

No one is saying that it was a dishonourable act or that it was morally wrong but that it was a failing for Robb the ruler, not necessarily Robb the man. He knew what would happpen to the Karstark foot and other Karstarks should he execute Rickard and he did so anyway.

Quote

I think it is a failing depends on the way how you look at things. If you look it at an utilitarist point of view, yeah probably. But I prefer a leader who follows the way in a moral way. And Robb did that. He did not want to kill Rickard because he was father's friend, his bannerman and the father of his comrades who died for him. He knew he make Harrion an enemy (a lot of the Karstarks fled already away but might have returned when Rickard was held a hostage*). But he still did it because Rickard "killed his honor". In my opinion Robb acted like a leader should do: punish people who murdered children.  

* I am actually starting to wonder. Would this really have worked? Might they not have turned against Robb even if Rickard was a hostage? It did work with the mountain clans, ... but then they were in Winterfell. Keeping Ned and Sansa hostage did not work to keep Robb from fighting?

19 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Robb says so. It was his honour more than them being children

Yeah, he says it indeed so. But the reason why Rickard killed his honor is because he killed them in their sleep, in their cell, unarmed, ... and in the same chapter the same description of them is given in connection with the fact they were children. 

And like I said, Ned also considered killing children dishonorable. Robb is actually here acting in the same way as Ned did after the Sack of King's Landing. Ned literally says killing children is dishonorable, the conquest of KL was without any honor, ... The only difference is that Robb here has the power to punish the ones who killed the honor of "King" by killing those children. 

I just think you cannot disconnect the murder of children and Robb's honor who was also killed.

And you can indeed say Ned's and Robb's way does not lead into success. But that does not mean they fail as rulers IMO. Robert failed (morally) as ruler because he did not react to the murders of Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon. I think it would be immoral to see Tywin and people like him as good rulers and people who at least try to do good as bad rulers. 

And because of that reason I feel Robb did not fail here. It might have contributed to the Red Wedding but he did not make mistake here IMO. But in the end I think this all depends how you look at things? So I am completely prepared to agree to disagree .

I also wanted to write I believe from my anachronistic point of view Robb should not have decided over Karstark's fate because he would completely impartial as a result of Bran's and Rickon's death and he should have someone else make the decision. But then I remembered this would completely go against the personal way to handle things of the Starks.

Still, separation of powers rule!!! Wait, check and balances is even better. 

[Sydney Mae]

4 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 Kings are the law. Robb could have shown leniency to one of his most loyal Houses like he did to the Greatjon.

If Robb was so bothered about the law he would have accepted his father being arrested for treason and would never have rebelled.

Robb is quite capable of ignoring 'the law' when it suits him. This was not about law but his pride.

Very good point.  Robb had no way of knowing whether the charges were true or false.  Instead of following directions he chose to call his banners and ride out to the Riverlands.  Honestly, would it matter to Robb whether Ned was guilty or not?  In other words, would Robb choose to stay home and leave Ned to his fate if proof could have been given of his guilt?  I think not. 

This is one of my problems with the Starks.  They do a great job talking about honor, duty, and the law.  Yet they conveniently ignore the law if it served their own interests.  The Starks are hypocrites. 

 

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

The Bracken and Blackwood lands had fallen.

"With Lord Blackwood gone, Raventree fell at once, and Lady Whent yielded Harrenhal for want of men to defend it. Ser Gregor burnt out the Pipers and the Brackens …"

What little resistance there was was hold up in Riverrun. Once that had fallen the Riverlands would be finished.

 

I meant later, ADWD. Once a Stark comes to the Ricerlands its fair game.

 

9 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I am not really sure your point here. Walder has a right to be aggrieved with Robb's betrayal just like the Manderlys and the rest of the North are allowed to feel the same about the Freys.

If you are saying promises are meaningless in Westeros then fair enough. The promise Guest Rights should be no different.

Not at the same scale. Marriage contracts get broken. Manderly lost his men and imprisoned his child.

Words are wind. That's the way Westeros is. If Walder was smart he'd have married Roslin off immediately, throwing a murderous fit doesn't solve anything, sometimes the king gets away with stuff because its good to be the king.

22 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

How was Walder an asshole for making a treaty that would make him a Rebel to the Throne?

While he is certainly an asshole, he was not for asking for a price to rebel against the King of Westeros.

Oh my god! Bad PR!!!

And yeah, I agree that it was over the top but vengeance often is.

Because Robb was trying to rescue his family and was being strong armed by a man of lesser blood who should have raised their banners when Edmure did under king Robert. Dude we're going in circles.

Yes, bad PR. Do you not think the RW was stupid because of the bad PR it brings?

But its bullshit vengeance. Robb broke up with a girl so everyone dies. Why do you defend Walders pride but attack Robb's?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I meant later, ADWD. Once a Stark comes to the Ricerlands its fair game.

The Brackens were one of the first to offer terms of peace to the Crown and were rewarded for it with extra lands.

I highly doubt that Bracken is going to join another rebellion with no cause.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Not at the same scale. Marriage contracts get broken. Manderly lost his men and imprisoned his child.

Sure it is a similar scale. We only have to look at Lyonael Baratheon's reaction to his marriage alliance with the Targaryens being broken. He rebelled and he, unlike the Freys, did lose his heir and hundreds of his men as a payment for that marriage.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Words are wind. That's the way Westeros is. If Walder was smart he'd have married Roslin off immediately, throwing a murderous fit doesn't solve anything, sometimes the king gets away with stuff because its good to be the king.

Maybe he wanted to. Robb was in a rush to get to Winterfell, it may well have been his decision to delay the wedding.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Because Robb was trying to rescue his family and was being strong armed by a man of lesser blood who should have raised their banners when Edmure did under king Robert. Dude we're going in circles.

He did raise his banners. He even killed Lannisters but by the time Robb reached the Twins Tywin was Hand and the siege of Riverrun was being endorsed by the Crown.

He owed the King fealty, he does not owe Robb Stark anything.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yes, bad PR. Do you not think the RW was stupid because of the bad PR it brings?

No. Things get forgiven all the time in Westeros.  Hoster burned down the Goodbrook village and killed its lord, 15 years later his son is good friends with Hoster's son.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

But its bullshit vengeance. Robb broke up with a girl so everyone dies.

Well he didnt just break up with a girl. Men died for that promise. Had he never of made that promise not only would those men be alive but Walder would not have made an enemy of the Crown.

Joining Robb was a costly decision that carried an awful lot of risk. He was entitled to ask for a price, which Robb willingly accepted.

Robb fucked him over.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Why do you defend Walders pride but attack Robb's?

I am not sure your meaning here.

[Jon Fossoway]

Robb sending Theon to the Isles. That was one thing very badly done. I can't recall the ironmen, in westerosi history, working with any kingdom via an old-style alliance. The Red Kraken, in the Dance of Dragons, was simply allowed to pillage nominally under a Targ banner, which really did not mean much.

By sending Theon to the Isles on whatever reasoning, he gave the ironmen no motive to hold back any attack on the North.

[Frey Pie]

Some things never change...lol same shit different thread

 

Duhuh duh ehh what did Robb ever get right? Hurrdydur

 

Why don't we cherry pick any other character? Tywin, slaughtered thousands of westerlands men and destroyed two of his own houses, sold his daughter to a womanising, abusive husband, failed to see his children were riding each other,  allowed his golden child to be captured by a 15 year old, was forced to leave an incredibly strong position by said 15 year old, was killed taking a shit by his son for being a dick, alienated a large amount of houses by having the largest stick in westeros stuck up his hole

 

Or how about Doran? Didn't send enough men to protect his sister, sent his brother to kings landing to die, sent his son to Dan to die, hated by most of his family.

[Parker Zielinski]

Rob shouldnt have asked walder to ose the bridge, he should have told him to armor up his men and open the gates, even if walder doesnt recognize robs authority as king in the north, walder owes alligenice to the tullys, and they are with rob, so rob shouldve had edmure or blackfish or even cat roll up and demand, not beg and deal make. Walder can lose his 2000 men or join up.