Roose was a semi hero

[Jadakiss]

The war ended because of his help. Yes he sent many to their deaths etc, he is an ass thats for sure.

But mistake after mistake by Robb it was a matter of time before the war ended. He had iron born to his back and the crown to his front. Roose was what the north needed in a sick way. They would have lost the war and all been put to the sword, in a way he looked out for his own.

Yes red wedding many were killed who were the super strong robb supporters, but if left alive his new regime would have been in danger from other northern house. He wasnt the man they wanted but was the man they needed

[Burning down the House]

Roose was a traitor to his king.  His head will be on a spike on the walls of winterfell half way through the next book.

[Jadakiss]

32 minutes ago, Burning down the House said:

Roose was a traitor to his king.  His head will be on a spike on the walls of winterfell half way through the next book.

 

traitor to his king yes, but if not for that everyone would have been killed. it was be loyal and everyone dies or be a "traitor" and a good portion lives.

 

What do you think tywin would have done to the whole north after robb lost the war, he would send a message to the other kingdoms as he did once before

[velo-knight]

1 hour ago, Jadakiss said:

The war ended because of his help. Yes he sent many to their deaths etc, he is an ass thats for sure.

But mistake after mistake by Robb it was a matter of time before the war ended. He had iron born to his back and the crown to his front. Roose was what the north needed in a sick way. They would have lost the war and all been put to the sword, in a way he looked out for his own.

Yes red wedding many were killed who were the super strong robb supporters, but if left alive his new regime would have been in danger from other northern house. He wasnt the man they wanted but was the man they needed

I'm not sure I buy the whole "Robb was constantly making mistakes" angle. Certainly, things could have gone better, but many if not most Northern lords likely would have still supported at least a passive resistance campaign. Dorne is proof that it's not possible to hold the remoter regions of Westeros if the locals want you gone, and Tywin knew that - which is why he made a deal with Roose in the first place. Depending on how you look at Roose on the Green Fork and later in his forays to Duskendale, etc., some of Robb's problems may have come from the fact that Roose was disloyal from the start and actively sabotaging, if not the entire war effort, at least the troops belonging to other houses.

For all of Tywin's reputation, the idea that he could've singlehandedly wiped out the North is absurd. It's quite defensible; difficult to keep an invading force supplied in, with strong cultural factors in place that would stiffen resistance. If I'm Robb's bannerman and I'm interested in politics, I'd probably assume that, had he succeeded in bypassing Moat Cailin and retaking Winterfell, he'd continue to use the independence claim as leverage on the Iron Throne for acceptable peace terms (return to the King's Peace, without Sansa as a hostage and no apology for Lord Eddard. A smack in the face, but honestly the ones most likely to get screwed are the riverlords. Bolton probably calculated this too, and figured he could exploit the situation so that at the end, he and not Robb was effectively Lord of the North.

[Jadakiss]

2 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

I'm not sure I buy the whole "Robb was constantly making mistakes" angle. Certainly, things could have gone better, but many if not most Northern lords likely would have still supported at least a passive resistance campaign. Dorne is proof that it's not possible to hold the remoter regions of Westeros if the locals want you gone, and Tywin knew that - which is why he made a deal with Roose in the first place. Depending on how you look at Roose on the Green Fork and later in his forays to Duskendale, etc., some of Robb's problems may have come from the fact that Roose was disloyal from the start and actively sabotaging, if not the entire war effort, at least the troops belonging to other houses.

For all of Tywin's reputation, the idea that he could've singlehandedly wiped out the North is absurd. It's quite defensible; difficult to keep an invading force supplied in, with strong cultural factors in place that would stiffen resistance. If I'm Robb's bannerman and I'm interested in politics, I'd probably assume that, had he succeeded in bypassing Moat Cailin and retaking Winterfell, he'd continue to use the independence claim as leverage on the Iron Throne for acceptable peace terms (return to the King's Peace, without Sansa as a hostage and no apology for Lord Eddard. A smack in the face, but honestly the ones most likely to get screwed are the riverlords. Bolton probably calculated this too, and figured he could exploit the situation so that at the end, he and not Robb was effectively Lord of the North.

 

Correct about many things. But fact is the current situation being trapped on both sides etc. that was was done, robb did keep blundering. roose could have been "loyal" and died. or be a "traitor" and lived. he was looking out for his own people and knew the situation

 

Tywin alone wouldnt wipe out the whole north who didnt knee bend. keep in mind he would have the reach/tyrells and the other kingdoms to answer when he called his banners. yes he wouldnt mass genocide but he was decapitate and go from there

[velo-knight]

4 hours ago, Jadakiss said:

 

Correct about many things. But fact is the current situation being trapped on both sides etc. that was was done, robb did keep blundering. roose could have been "loyal" and died. or be a "traitor" and lived. he was looking out for his own people and knew the situation

Roose had no way of knowing that, and again, if he was trapped it was in part of his own making.  Most of the defeated lords in the Riverlands wound up not only keeping their heads, but their castles, and I don't think that's just because Tywin died. I agree Roose would've been loyal enough to Robb if his fortunes had improved noticeably, but even when (presumably) loyal, such as at the Green fork, he jokeys for position by sacrificing the troops of other Northern lords while holding his own in reserve. We know full well that Roose Bolton doesn't look out for anyone but himself, so I don't buy that he was trying to protect Dreadfort men for anything but his own ambition.

4 hours ago, Jadakiss said:

 

Tywin alone wouldnt wipe out the whole north who didnt knee bend. keep in mind he would have the reach/tyrells and the other kingdoms to answer when he called his banners. yes he wouldnt mass genocide but he was decapitate and go from there

The Reach was in Dorne, a smaller kingdom with even fewer people. Look how it worked out for them that time - I doubt an invasion of the North would be any different. Also, Tywin's bloody reputation from the Tarbeks and Castameres is a special circumstance: 1.) the former castle legit collapsed on the inhabitants (as can happen in an aggressive assault on an old building), 2.) Castamere's flooding was the best tactical way to win the battle, 3.) Tywin was motivated to be bloody because of a perception of years of weakness at Casterly Rock. Tywin was also very bloody in the Sack, but this time he was desperate to prove he was on the right side to Robert - which doesn't make him less reprehensible, but I don't think Roose had much to fear from Tywin, especially if he'd been noticeably sabotaging the Stark war effort.

[UnFit Finlay]

I can't get on board with this.

Robb wouldn't have been losing the war quite so badly, if Roose hadn't been actively betraying him. For example, if Roose had returned Jaime and Brienne to Riverrun then Lord Karstark may have not have lost his head (both literally and figuratively) and Robb wouldn't have lost Karstark's men. Same with Roose sending Robett Glover to Duskendale where the Mountain and Randyll Tarly were conveniently waiting. That cost Robb a third of his strength.

It's also worth questioning Roose's involvement in the Sack of Winterfell: Ramsay orders the Bolton men to spare the Freys and burn everything else. Does Ramsay really seem the type to care about Big Walder and Little Walder? Is it not more likely that he sent a raven to Roose when he made it back to the Dreadfort and was simply following Roose's orders?

Without Ramsay's involvement, Ser Rodrik would've taken back Winterfell and likely the rest of the North as well. We might well have seen Bran and Rickon reappear as well (Ramsay knows they aren't dead. It's likely Roose does as well.) which would've given Robb a huge lift, if not his whole army. At the very least they'd be able to focus on the war in the South.

With that said, Roose had no choice but to go through with the Red Wedding. Robb made it clear that he wanted to speak to Robett Glover when he made it back North. If that happened Roose was dead. If Robb should then happen to speak to Lord Manderly or, well, anybody, about Ramsay then House Bolton would cease to be.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

10 hours ago, Jadakiss said:

The war ended because of his help.

Yes, the war is definitely truly over fer sure. Realm in peace. The Riverlands, the North, everywhere, nothing but fecking white doves with olive branches in their beaks. Hallmark sweet.

(BTW, somewhere else you wrote: " hey its wavey. i was banned for long time. any messages u have sent I didnt got it. whatever my last reply was was the last thing before my ban" - does it mean that now you've two accounts?)

[Roose on the Loose]

The problem Ned and Robb shared was an almost total lack of understanding of how soft power politics works.  They were great field generals, but neither could see that there's a whole other was outside the battlefield.  Roose, traveling through the burnt out Riverlands would understand that he was up against a player who means business.  A brave and moral version of Roose might go all in for Robb to create some dim hope that Tywin wouldn't win.  But Roose is neither brave nor moral.

Flaying and the Lord's Right have a lot less nuance than loyalty to a feudal banner.  That said, I've always found villains to be the most interesting characters

 

[Wrl6199]

1 minute ago, Roose on the Loose said:

The problem Ned and Robb shared was an almost total lack of understanding of how soft power politics works.  They were great field generals, but neither could see that there's a whole other was outside the battlefield.  Roose, traveling through the burnt out Riverlands would understand that he was up against a player who means business.  A brave and moral version of Roose might go all in for Robb to create some dim hope that Tywin wouldn't win.  But Roose is neither brave nor moral.

Flaying and the Lord's Right have a lot less nuance than loyalty to a feudal banner.  That said, I've always found villains to be the most interesting characters

 

That was also a problem that robert definitely couldn't see. Much more then Ned or robb could have seen. But yeah I agree. Plus Ned was a bit gullible. Well i guess gullible wouldn't be the right word to use but more ignorant. Like that time little finger told him he shouldn't trust him but he.

[Jadakiss]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Yes, the war is definitely truly over fer sure. Realm in peace. The Riverlands, the North, everywhere, nothing but fecking white doves with olive branches in their beaks. Hallmark sweet.

(BTW, somewhere else you wrote: " hey its wavey. i was banned for long time. any messages u have sent I didnt got it. whatever my last reply was was the last thing before my ban" - does it mean that now you've two accounts?)

 

no it was in regards to an ign football forum

[Jadakiss]

2 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

I can't get on board with this.

Robb wouldn't have been losing the war quite so badly, if Roose hadn't been actively betraying him. For example, if Roose had returned Jaime and Brienne to Riverrun then Lord Karstark may have not have lost his head (both literally and figuratively) and Robb wouldn't have lost Karstark's men. Same with Roose sending Robett Glover to Duskendale where the Mountain and Randyll Tarly were conveniently waiting. That cost Robb a third of his strength.

It's also worth questioning Roose's involvement in the Sack of Winterfell: Ramsay orders the Bolton men to spare the Freys and burn everything else. Does Ramsay really seem the type to care about Big Walder and Little Walder? Is it not more likely that he sent a raven to Roose when he made it back to the Dreadfort and was simply following Roose's orders?

Without Ramsay's involvement, Ser Rodrik would've taken back Winterfell and likely the rest of the North as well. We might well have seen Bran and Rickon reappear as well (Ramsay knows they aren't dead. It's likely Roose does as well.) which would've given Robb a huge lift, if not his whole army. At the very least they'd be able to focus on the war in the South.

With that said, Roose had no choice but to go through with the Red Wedding. Robb made it clear that he wanted to speak to Robett Glover when he made it back North. If that happened Roose was dead. If Robb should then happen to speak to Lord Manderly or, well, anybody, about Ramsay then House Bolton would cease to be.

 

Take Ramsay out of it and lets say roose didnt keep his own men fresh in reserve, that war was over, just the time is the question. Roose looked out for his own men and got it over with

 

I should have made the thread that Roose is an ant type hero with his own men, all under him as a liege lord, he looked out for them and himself, and Robb screwing the freys out of the marriage might have been final nail

[WSmith84]

You can call Roose many things, but heroic is not a word I'd use. Opportunistic? Cunning? Selfish? Realistic? I think you could make a good argument for all of those points. But not heroic. Roose didn't betray Robb out of some selfless desire to end the war. He did it to advance his own position and so that he could go home and not fight someone else's war anymore. One could argue that his decision was the best one for the majority of folk, but it still doesn't make it heroic. Intentions matter.

[Jadakiss]

52 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

You can call Roose many things, but heroic is not a word I'd use. Opportunistic? Cunning? Selfish? Realistic? I think you could make a good argument for all of those points. But not heroic. Roose didn't betray Robb out of some selfless desire to end the war. He did it to advance his own position and so that he could go home and not fight someone else's war anymore. One could argue that his decision was the best one for the majority of folk, but it still doesn't make it heroic. Intentions matter.

agree. not heroic in the usual sense. but to the people who was under him by liege, and a good chunk of northern houses he saved. Not only did he get the iron born away but he saved them from a war they couldnt win

[Jadakiss]

2 hours ago, Jadakiss said:

 

Take Ramsay out of it and lets say roose didnt keep his own men fresh in reserve, that war was over, just the time is the question. Roose looked out for his own men and got it over with

 

I should have made the thread that Roose is an ant type hero with his own men, all under him as a liege lord, he looked out for them and himself, and Robb screwing the freys out of the marriage might have been final nail

this is what I was mainly getting at

[John Doe]

It's weird how people use modern morals to judge characters, except when it comes to the Starks. 

 

"Tywin is a monster, he burned the Riverlands:"

"That's called chevauchee, it happened a lot."

"Whatever."

 

"Stannis is a monster, he employs a torturer at Dragonstone."
"Torture was a popular method of questioning back then."

"Whatever."

 

"Roose Bolton is a traitor to his king! We should uphold feudal customs at all costs! Besides, he broke the ancient custom of guest right! And Manderly is totally awesome because he gave them a gift before killing his guests... and Ned Stark making Theon his swordbearer and giving him beatings as a child are totally okay because that's just how things were back then!"

 

It's hypocritical. 

[The Wolves]

26 minutes ago, John Doe said:

It's weird how people use modern morals to judge characters, except when it comes to the Starks. 

 

"Tywin is a monster, he burned the Riverlands:"

"That's called chevauchee, it happened a lot."

"Whatever."

 

"Stannis is a monster, he employs a torturer at Dragonstone."
"Torture was a popular method of questioning back then."

"Whatever."

 

"Roose Bolton is a traitor to his king! We should uphold feudal customs at all costs! Besides, he broke the ancient custom of guest right! And Manderly is totally awesome because he gave them a gift before killing his guests... and Ned Stark making Theon his swordbearer and giving him beatings as a child are totally okay because that's just how things were back then!"

 

It's hypocritical. 

The Starks are very popular so it's natural that there is hypocrisy involved. 

But modern morals or not the Starks still compared to Tywin, Roose, Stannis, Joffrey and many others in the books are still morally better characters. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

40 minutes ago, John Doe said:

It's weird how people use modern morals to judge characters, except when it comes to the Starks.

If by "weird" you meant "a lie", then I concur, it is a lie.

We are perfectly OK with judging people with in-universe standards. And it's really not as if the Red Wedding wasn't considered revolting in-universe. And it's not as if Tywin Lannister isn't considered a ruthless monster in-universe. But you are aware of all that, and manufacture the pitiful "double standards" strawman to get a, hopefully, enraged reaction.

I get that it's five years between books for you and you're bored, but it's the same five years for me, thus I just don't feel like being enraged by such lazy a try. Sorry.

[Jon Fossoway]

I guess Roose knew that in this bet it was his head being played. During Bob's revolt, he sided with other major lords against the Crown, he was most probably a minor commander in the war; in the War of the Five Kings he was a major commander. Robbs campaign south relied on speed and objectives being met without a margin of error. They were outnumbered in almost every front. Robb didn't made a lot of mistakes, he neither made mistake after mistake, but he stumbled and failed when he wasn't supposed to, sometimes by his own doing (betraying one of his most powerful newfound allies, the Freys), sometimes not by his own doing (Edmure preventing Tywin passing the Fords), but at some point I know Roose saw the war lost, and him being executed as one of the traitor's chief commanders.

So he switches sides.

But doing it so thoughtfully, that he's doing it gaining stuff back, for him and his family, like wardenship of the North, an office traditionally held by the Starks, thus converting his own House in the main northern power. 

I don't know if it was heroic betraying his liege lord and King, but he got a lot from it. Also, the Red Wedding prevented the Crown from going into punishing northern lords arbitrarily, since it did behead Robb's rebellious bannermen. And at the end of the day, the North is mostly intact. Weakened, yeah, but still a functioning region, under Bolton effective rule. Then you got Stannis farting in the distance but oh well...

[Chris Mormont]

Roose was no hero.  Not even the Lannisters would consider him as such and he saved a great number of them with his misdeeds.  I am sure he had something to do with Ramsey's actions at Winterfell, and he definitely sent Robett Glover to his defeat at Duskendale.  So when everyone is counting Robb's war lost, if Winterfell is recaptured by Sir Roderick, then Robb doesn't have to go back North, at worst he stays in the Riverlands, and accepts some form of peace