Failure Analysis: Robb Stark

[Frey Pie]

I think the point of Frey hate and distrust throughout westeros is pretty clear. George only has a so much time in his books to write about every nuance which we make a mountain of, so mentioning Freys in derogatory terms a few times speaks volumes as to what the author wants us to think imho

[ManderlysPies]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I will try and put them in order

• left the North (particularly the Capital and West Coast) poorly defended Not too sure about this, as we've seen in ADWD there's still a significant number of fighting men in the North. Manderly was creating a fleet to at least somewhat prevent someone sailing into the North and it's definitely not Robbs fault for the whole Ramsay thing. WF was significantly well guarded, only Theon really could of taken it and he quickly lost it. 
• ignored his mother and gave the Ironborn back a hostage his own father suggested should be watched even more carefully One of his biggest mistakes.
• refused to exchange Jaime for his sisters Jaime, outnumbered and taken by surprise, killed several highborn and nearly got to Robb. Men fear him, he's Tywins heir (in Tywins mind) and he's actually a good commander bar his W Wood disaster. Realistically, why would Mace want Sansa as a bride, when he can have Margery as Queen by backing Tywin. Marriages don't just make people commit thousands of men, there has to be more as well.
• offered very little to prospective allies; war could have been over had he have tried more incentives for the Arryns and Ironborn to join him or offered some compromise for an alliance with Renly/Stannis Lysa was mad and being played by LF, there isn't much he could of done, unless he convinced some honourable houses to betray their liege lord. Stannis would refuse to work with usurper and Renly was dead before negotiations really got going. Robb did as much as he could.
• betrayed the vassal who had done more for his war than any of his other vassals Agree completely.
• left his largest army doing nothing for most of the war; no real objectives but to just sit and do nothing (while plundering the Riverlands) I understood the initial idea, to allow his cavalry to surprise Jaime and to protect Tywin going north, but after that it wasn't smart. 
• no clear instructions to Edmure, no real communication with either Edmure or Roose. Robb was the very definition of an excellent captain but poor general who failed to utilize his whole army Agree fully.
• misplaced sense of honour; marrying Jeyne was not just a betrayal to the Freys but his kingdom. Swapping 4k Freys for the 50 Westerlings was incredibly dumb, dooming his kingdom in the process Agreed
• giving the harshest punishment to the Lord of one of his most loyal Houses. He showed leniency to the Greatjon and his mother (which was the right thing to do) and should have done the same with Karstark. He allowed his 'honour' and emotions to rule his head. Still unsure on this. Karstark put every single Northern hostage at risk, committed a double murder of children and had become consumed with rage. In this situation, I imagine every reacts differently. Roose would cover it up, Tywin would hold him hostage, Robb beheads him. Theres downsides to every scenario.
• refusal to realize he had lost. Cat suggested surrender on the way to the Twins and he flatly refused. He and his army could have survived had he compromised Will explain below.
• His arrogance; he bought into his own hype. Robb looked more amused than afraid. “I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don’t need to trust in bread and salt  The problems of being too good too young, Loras and AGOT Jaime had the same problem.

 

I think Robb and Jon have the same thing in common, they don't really think about how others are feeling. Robb didn't consider the fact that Theon was going home for the first time in years, he didn't consider the cunning of Roose, he didn't understand just how proud Walder was or just how upset Karstark was after W Wood. His problem was he assumed the pawns would simply follow the plans, without considering their ambitions or emotions. 

Jon had the same issue, he didn't realise just how badly the Watch were taking the Wildling situation and failed to see how much it affected other people.

[dreem24]

On 2.04.2016 г. at 8:12 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Not as far as we know.

"Would that it were. My brother commands in Riverrun?"

"Yes, my lady. His Grace left Ser Edmure to hold Riverrun and guard his rear."

Gods grant him the strength to do so, Catelyn thought.

 

At best Robb's orders were vague at worst Edmure followed them and still was made the scapegoat because Robb needed someone of significant pedigree to marry a Frey. 

 

Edmure may even have saved Robb's life as it is possible he was injured at the Crag the time Tywin was marching West.

Scapegoat it is even if told to only hold Riverrun. Let's say if they told him only hold dont advance he saw that they would stike at their other forces(north) from behind and prevented it.  Smarter move would have been if he knows to allow the lannisters and when they have passed a day later to march behind Tywin so that he and Robb would fight two vs one.  I dont know the number of Robb's army but Edmure had 20k in Riverrun right?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

4 hours ago, Tijgy said:

Mass murder of thousands people does have consequences.

They were an army. Robb himself says so. Did Robb mass murder the Lannister army at Oxcross? Or the Rebel army at the Battle of the Trident?

4 hours ago, Tijgy said:

And it does already have like "just bad PR" like you called it, Ryman, Petyr, Merrett, Symond, Jared and Rheagar's death and who knows which poor blood of the Freys will flood. So yeah, the mass murder have consequences which will bigger than some people who are a nuisance. And I certainly believe it should have consequences.

 

People die. I don't put that down the to the will of the Gods. Would there have been Frey casualties if the agreed to rejoin Robb and were part of his force that assaulted Moat Cailin? Possibly. Or if they attacked Robb outside of the castle? Again, almost certainly. Death is a common factor in war and the Freys have been involved in more battles in this war than any other House. Casualties were a certainty. 

Do you think Ned, Cat and Robb died because they pissed off the Gods? No, of course not.

5 hours ago, watcher of the night said:

You are seriuosly misguiding yourself if you think that anyone will step up in defense of the Freys.

They really don't need defending in the Riverlands as they are far and away the most powerful faction there right now.

And the North is only going to be a problem after winter and much of the next summer as they also need to rehabilitate.

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

Sure,  but how many Freys can there by at Seaguard?

I'm sorry, did you think I said there was thousands or even hundreds at Seagard? I said "the Mallisters were neutralized pretty quickly by the Freys". Why are you arguing about numbers when I never made any claim about there being 'many'?

Don't get me wrong Blackfish,I enjoy our discussions but keep it on topic.

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

The Freys are spread all around the Riverlands plus a couple of thousand in the north , frankly it's only a matter of time before the Freys spread themselves too thin and they start losing control.

Possibly, but the last time we saw they were pretty secure in the Riverlands. Even without the 1,400 in the North who are never likely to return.

Houses like Frey and Manderly have one advantage in this war, being able to recruit the displaced smallfolk in the North/Riverlands and put them to work in their army/navy.

 

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

Those Houses united under Robb Stark so why would they not unite under Edmure or Brynden Tully?

Well first of all they didnt unite under Robb. They were already united. Robb did not form the Riverlands. And secondly, the Westerlands attacking them left them with little choice, though it is telling that instead of crowing a Tully they crowned a Stark.

And if they were going to unite under a Tully why not do it after the red Wedding? While the Westerlands army was still in the Crownlands, while they still had Riverrun and its food stores, before they did not give up hostages and gold. Before the Brackens and Blackwwoods further weakened themselves at the Siege of Raventree Hall.

There is less reason to unite under a Tully now than when the Tullys still had Riverrun.

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

especially against a common enemy like the Freys . For all we know they are already united and are just biding their time. 

And deliberately weakening themselves while strengthening the Freys?

Not impossible, but would be pretty dumb if it does pan out that way.

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

Edmure was able to raise 11,000 men for the Battle of the Fords and as far as we know most of those men are still around in the Riverlands .

Some of those men were Freys, some were likely Vyprens, Charltons, men from the Darry and Harrenhal lands. Men he no longer commands or feeds.

What incentive do the Riverlords have to risk everything they have for Edmure? And why delay, why not do it before they put themselves even further at a disadvantage?

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

It was mostly Northerers who were killed in the Red Wedding so the Riverlords still have access to thousands of soldiers so to imply that they are not a threat is just not true .

They are not a threat as they are not united and now that winter is here they have more important issues to deal with.

5 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

"So long as there are fish in the rivers, we won't starve, though I don't know how we're going to feed the horses. The Freys are hauling food and fodder down from the Twins, but Ser Ryman claims he does not have enough to share, so we must forage for ourselves. Half the men I send off to look for food do not return. Some are deserting. Others we find ripening under trees, with ropes about their necks."

Like I said, the Freys have food.

 

[Tijgy]

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

People die. I don't put that down the to the will of the Gods. Would there have been Frey casualties if the agreed to rejoin Robb and were part of his force that assaulted Moat Cailin? Possibly. Or if they attacked Robb outside of the castle? Again, almost certainly. Death is a common factor in war and the Freys have been involved in more battles in this war than any other House. Casualties were a certainty. 

Do you think Ned, Cat and Robb died because they pissed off the Gods? No, of course not.

Yeah, people die. And I might have mentioned about a "divine" punishment of Jaime who lost his hand and Tywin who got arrow while he was shitting

But I just mention Robb's actions lead to the Red Wedding (which this thread is trying to prove?) and Frey's actions will (hopefully) lead to destruction of Walder Frey in whatever form that might be just because Frey an idiot by turning the North against him, by making himself known as someone who breaks guest right and hated by at least some Riverlords). I am not really sure I said anything that the fact every actions should have his consequences is something divine. It is just more about a moral signal? 

No, they died because of some of their actions lead to their death? Nothing divine but some decisions they made has some causal relation to their death? And I want Walder's actions also cause his death. 

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

They were an army. Robb himself says so. Did Robb mass murder the Lannister army at Oxcross? Or the Rebel army at the Battle of the Trident?

Quote

Come on, it is fucking murder because they made an agreement with Edmure as a prize and because they organized a wedding feast. This is no bloody war. This is fucking organized mass murder by Walder Frey. I do in the other situations not the one giving them first cookies and then putting an dagger in their back. This is completely different. People still died at the other events but it is the whole deceit of the RW that made it worse which is sort of recognized in the books? If not so why the hell would they tell stories like men turning into wolves? 

[Frey Pie]

Walder was completely within his rights to be pissed off with Robb,  well within his rights to take his men away and command them to fight Robb. He was well within his rights to bend the knee to Tywin or anyone else and fight against the men who used to be his allies

 

He was not within his rights to pretend to still be an ally and murder 3500 men. That's the truth, the whole truth and ...ya know. Comparing it to Oxcross or any number of battles is just completely off point 

[Frey Pie]

So how about in GOT Robert after already swearing joffrey would marry sansa, turns around to Ned and says, my son actually married Maergery Tyrell,  sorry about that, but your daughter can marry another high lord which I have already procured for you and which will increase your families standing, land holdings and money. 

So Ned says ya I'm pretty angry but ok and invites the king and his party to Winterfell for the wedding. Then they go up and are having an alright wedding when Ned and his men murder the king, most of his followers and take the rest captive.

Is that ok? Was Ned just soothing his wounded pride? Or was he thinking of the men who died fighting for him to nake Robert king?

No, no and....no.

[Blackfish Tully]

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I'm sorry, did you think I said there was thousands or even hundreds at Seagard? I said "the Mallisters were neutralized pretty quickly by the Freys". Why are you arguing about numbers when I never made any claim about there being 'many'?

Don't get me wrong Blackfish,I enjoy our discussions but keep it on topic.

 

Sorry , did not mean it that way , i was just speculating that there could not be to many Frey men at Seaguard with them spread out across the Riverlands and the North , you are right that the Mallister's could not really threaten the Freys alone  but if they were to be joined with the Pipers , Blackwoods and Vances and any other houses that would join Edmure and Blackfish against the Freys there is potentially a few thousand men that could be formed into an army and you have the BwB already in a perfect position to handle the communication and organizing of the Riverlords plus one of the best commanders in Westeroes just happens to be in the Riverlands somewhere and you have the potential for some bad days ahead for the Freys.

 

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

And if they were going to unite under a Tully why not do it after the red Wedding? While the Westerlands army was still in the Crownlands, while they still had Riverrun and its food stores, before they did not give up hostages and gold. Before the Brackens and Blackwwoods further weakened themselves at the Siege of Raventree Hall.

There is less reason to unite under a Tully now than when the Tullys still had Riverrun.

 

The Tyrell/Lannister alliance being so strong plus Roose Bolton and his army at the Twins plus Edmure and the other hostages made uniting after the Red Weddiing nearly impossible . But since then the Freys and their allies have gotten weaker and more distracted by other threats  so the best strategy is to organize and plan and wait for the right chance . The Freys and the Twins will not be an easy nut to crack so the best way is to patient and wait for the right chance.  

 

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

Like I said, the Freys have food.

 

Sure the Freys have food but my point was that the Westerland army did not have enough food so how long will they stay in the Riverlands  now that things are "peaceful" there ? and are the Riverlords just waiting for that army to be gone? 

[Wall Flower]

Surely the Frey's problem is that the Lannister regime is going down fast, unlike the infamy and enmity engendered by the Red Wedding which is likely to stick to House Frey like a very bad smell. Will other Riverland lords remain friendly (or pretending to be friendly) with the Freys once their powerful ally has gone?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

5 hours ago, Frey Pie said:

Snip

lol I think we both know it is a bit more complicated than that, but I'll bite.

To start of, Ned was Robert's vassal. It is not the same relationship as Walder and Robb. Robert and Ned are more similar to Aegon V and Lyonel Baratheon who went to war with the Crown when the marriage alliance between Aegon's son and Lyonel's daughter was broken. Now in their relationship we hear of no significant price like the Freys paid, but still Lyonel was angry enough to rebel. If his heir had died as a consequence of the Dowry  for the wedding I imagine he'd be even more angry.

Now had Ned not been Robert's vassal and made an agreement to fight (a pretty much unwinnable) war, losing a decent percentage of his soldiers in the process and pissing off a greater enemy then yeah he'd be right to be wanting payment for this alliance.  And then at the end, after the death of many of Ned's men including his heir Robb and his younger son Bran, who was executed accidentally by one of Roberts subordinates. After all that Robert decided that he was not oing to follow through on their agreed price, then yeah Ned would be right in wanting revenge for it.

Now if the only way Ned could get revenge is partnering with a man who needed the Red Wedding to happen (Roose) in order to maximize his own ambitions then yeah, it is worth the bad PR and the possible wrath of imaginary beings.

Now Ned most likely would not do that. He is a Northman after all and they take Guest Rights more seriously than their Southern counterparts. He is also something of a stickler for the rules (except when his own family is threatened) He'd probably look for other avenues to get 'revenge', avenues that had less guarantee of success and would cost him thousands of his mens lives, perhaps putting in his own House in danger as he is now both an enemy of Robert and the 'greater enemy' he attacked with Robert.

Personally I'd go with Walder's method.

3 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 But since then the Freys and their allies have gotten weaker and more distracted by other threats  so the best strategy is to organize and plan and wait for the right chance .

The Freys have not grown weaker. When we last saw them they are in a stronger position than they were in any other book. Their wealth and new lands means that the almost certain loss of the 1,400 in the North will be recuperated elsewhere. The food and revenue of the two major castles of the Riverlands as well as Darry makes them pretty secure.

Now as it is still a fantasy novel I am not going to be that surprised when/if it all comes crashing down. They are one of the main 'villains' of the series, but as things stand now they are pretty secure. They'd be even more secure if Tywin was still alive and the High Sparrow did not become the High Septon (events that Walder really could not have predicted), but still very secure.

6 hours ago, Tijgy said:

 

Come on, it is fucking murder because they made an agreement with Edmure as a prize and because they organized a wedding feast. This is no bloody war. This is fucking organized mass murder by Walder Frey. I do in the other situations not the one giving them first cookies and then putting an dagger in their back. This is completely different. People still died at the other events but it is the whole deceit of the RW that made it worse which is sort of recognized in the books? If not so why the hell would they tell stories like men turning into wolves? 

And the North has a right to be angry over this 'deceit', and as I have made perfectly clear the Freys can have no complaints about some of the awful shit that has and will happen to them in the future. But by the same token, the Freys were right to be angry over Robb's deceit and they were justified to try and get their vengeance in the manner that would lead to actual success.

[Tijgy]

4 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

And the North has a right to be angry over this 'deceit', and as I have made perfectly clear the Freys can have no complaints about some of the awful shit that has and will happen to them in the future. But by the same token, the Freys were right to be angry over Robb's deceit and they were justified to try and get their vengeance in the manner that would lead to actual success.

They were sort of right to be angry. Nobody says they were not right in saying Good Riddance to Robb. And then they agreed officially with another agreement and then tried to kill thousands of men. The problem is not that they go against the Starks but that the means were completely out of proportion. Breaking a marriage contract and mass murderer under your roof are two completely different things which can actually not really be compared? 

Does someone actually say in the books their actions were justified?