North defeat war of five kings

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

when did they take Riverrun twice ? the only time i remember is when Edmure handed it over . 

 

They didn't. They never took it. They besieged it and participated in the battle of the camps, but Jaime seized it in the former and no Frey is noted during the battle of the Camps (though they were there). Robb and Brynden led the cavalry. I'd be surprised if many Freys were there to be honest. Aenys was at the GF along with Hosteen, Ronel, Jared, and Danwell.

[Blackfish Tully]

5 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 Manderly and his ilk were too but, uh, that might not happen.

yes , i'm guessing the Manderly marriages may be in jeopardy . For some reason i just don't think that they are going to work out. 

[cpg2016]

43 minutes ago, cgrav said:

This would come down to a pretty tight timeline analysis, which I can't scour the text for at the moment.

But... it's quite possible that Walder was hedging before Robb's marriage and keeping a back channel open via Roose (who himself has no problem seeing the Starks fall). Thus the pieces could have been well in place and only waiting for a signal, which came in the form of a broken marriage arrangement. That situation would put Walder in need of a quick, certain armistice with the Lannisters.

In CoK Ch. 64 we hear the Freys and Roose essentially abandoning Robb's cause, before he returns from the Westerlands with news of the marriage to Jeyne.  Obviously Roose is already plotting with Tywin, since he starts his plot to undermine Robb (remember it is the military disaster at Duskendale which really seals Robb's fate) at that time.  But the Frey's are also sitting there bitching about how the war is lost, and given what we know of Walder's sheer opportunism, it's pretty obvious that his betrayal is coming at some point.  GRRM has confirmed as much, if I can find the quote (he basically says the Red Wedding was vicious because Walder felt slighted, but that he was going to betray Robb either way).

[cgrav]

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

In CoK Ch. 64 we hear the Freys and Roose essentially abandoning Robb's cause, before he returns from the Westerlands with news of the marriage to Jeyne.  Obviously Roose is already plotting with Tywin, since he starts his plot to undermine Robb (remember it is the military disaster at Duskendale which really seals Robb's fate) at that time.  But the Frey's are also sitting there bitching about how the war is lost, and given what we know of Walder's sheer opportunism, it's pretty obvious that his betrayal is coming at some point.  GRRM has confirmed as much, if I can find the quote (he basically says the Red Wedding was vicious because Walder felt slighted, but that he was going to betray Robb either way).

I can't search at the moment, but does that news necessarily have to travel with Robb alone? Jeyne was basically a "useful idiot", being used by Tywin via by her parents to spy on Robb. I can't recall or maybe it's not stated just when the Westerlings begin communicating with Tywin, but if it was before Robb left the West then I'd wager that piece of news was the tipping point.

[The Commentator]

On 9/25/2017 at 9:55 PM, Alex Gu said:

What errors/mistakes  did robb make that lost the north the war of five kings or  would stark lose war regardless?

Robb's mistakes, in order of its contribution to his and the North's demise:

1. Betraying his strongest ally.  Robb made a pact with House Frey and he broke that pact.  It is easy to see why the Freys would be furious.  They lost kinsmen while fighting for Robb's side and he betrays them. 
2. Letting himself be crowned king in the north.  Which meant the north would become independent if he should win the war.  Any peace treaty would force the other side to concede the north and allow it to become independent.
3. Trusting Theon Greyjoy to negotiate with his family.
4. Not watching Roose Bolton carefully.
5. Killing Rickard Karstark.

Would the Starks lose the war regardless?

Not necessarily.  Because there was more than two sides to the war.  The best outcome for Robb was the break up of the seven kingdoms.  The warring sides would have to come to the table and negotiate.  Robb could not hold the entire continent and rule over the seven kingdoms.  The land would have broken up into at least two new kingdoms.  Three to four might be more accurate.  South, East, North, and Iron Islands.

[Amris]

On 26.9.2017 at 10:17 PM, zandru said:

Call me naive, but I just hate it when people strip the skin away and turn a what seemed to be a good story with convincing characters into a rickety, cobbled together plot vehicle whose purpose is to deliver some kind of banal "message." Of course, your mileage may vary! Don't let me stand in the way of "literary analysis".

Dorian is right though

GRRM's problem before the start of the war of the five kings was that the North was theoretically allied with the Riverlands, the Vale and the Stormlands. So 4 of 7 kingsdoms. The Lannisters were totally outnumbered and would have stood no chance. So GRRM had to find ways to split that alliance and he did. He brought in two different pretenders from the Stormland side - especially Stannis - to mess things up from their end, took the Vale out of the equation through Littlefinger and Lysa and gave the Riverlands a treacherous vassal (the Freys).

It's all designed for Robb to lose. Since that loss is needed for the story.

In addition to that Robb made some mistakes. But those were minor compared to what GRRM did to put him in a bad position.

 

[DominusNovus]

3 hours ago, Amris said:

Dorian is right though

GRRM's problem before the start of the war of the five kings was that the North was theoretically allied with the Riverlands, the Vale and the Stormlands. So 4 of 7 kingsdoms. The Lannisters were totally outnumbered and would have stood no chance. So GRRM had to find ways to split that alliance and he did. He brought in two different pretenders from the Stormland side - especially Stannis - to mess things up from their end, took the Vale out of the equation through Littlefinger and Lysa and gave the Riverlands a treacherous vassal (the Freys).

It's all designed for Robb to lose. Since that loss is needed for the story.

In addition to that Robb made some mistakes. But those were minor compared to what GRRM did to put him in a bad position.

 

Actually, its the North/Riverlands that screws things up for Stannis (or Renly, if you prefer).

[Blackfish Tully]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:26 PM, DominusNovus said:

Actually, its the North/Riverlands that screws things up for Stannis (or Renly, if you prefer).

how did the North/Riverlands screw up anything for Stannis or Renly ? they were the ones actually fighting Tywin while Renly and Stannis spent their whole time doing nothing or fighting each other.

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Blackfish Tully said:

how did the North/Riverlands screw up anything for Stannis or Renly ? they were the ones actually fighting Tywin while Renly and Stannis spent their whole time doing nothing or fighting each other.

Things would have been easier without Robb declaring himself King in the North, since Stannis is against anyone who doesn't consider him the rightful king. The North and Riverlands count because they're seceding. 

[Blackfish Tully]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

Things would have been easier without Robb declaring himself King in the North, since Stannis is against anyone who doesn't consider him the rightful king. The North and Riverlands count because they're seceding. 

how would Robb not declaring himself King help Stannis or Renly ? Renly would still have died by the shadowbaby and Stannis would still have been crushed by the Tyrell/Lannister alliance . Once Stannis and Renly turned on each other it pretty much spelled the end for both of them and there was nothing Robb could do about it . 

[Angel Eyes]

1 minute ago, Blackfish Tully said:

how would Robb not declaring himself King help Stannis or Renly ? Renly would still have died by the shadowbaby and Stannis would still have been crushed by the Tyrell/Lannister alliance . Once Stannis and Renly turned on each other it pretty much spelled the end for both of them and there was nothing Robb could do about it . 

Making an alliance with Stannis would have been easier with Robb not declaring himself King in the North. Though I think Renly aggravated things by proclaiming himself king for some reason or another.

[cpg2016]

On 9/27/2017 at 6:36 PM, cgrav said:

I can't search at the moment, but does that news necessarily have to travel with Robb alone? Jeyne was basically a "useful idiot", being used by Tywin via by her parents to spy on Robb. I can't recall or maybe it's not stated just when the Westerlings begin communicating with Tywin, but if it was before Robb left the West then I'd wager that piece of news was the tipping point.

Well the concept is that once Robb storms the Crag, Sybell Spicer is immediately reaching out to Tywin and proposing this plot, so she doesn't seem like her loyalties have shifted to Robb.

But the point is the Frey's don't know it yet, because presumably their reaction would have been exactly the same, but earlier.  The important point here, confirmed by Martin, is that Walder Frey is looking for a way to weasel out of his "alliance" with Robb from the moment he thinks Robb won't win (e.g. after the Blackwater), and the whole marriage to Jeyne gives him a convenient pretext to hide behind.

[cpg2016]

On 9/29/2017 at 11:02 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Robb's mistakes, in order of its contribution to his and the North's demise:

1. Betraying his strongest ally.  Robb made a pact with House Frey and he broke that pact.  It is easy to see why the Freys would be furious.  They lost kinsmen while fighting for Robb's side and he betrays them. 

Well it is highly debatable as to whether this constitutes a "betrayal".  As we've seen, Walder is in this for equally opportunistic reasons as Robb, and is actively trying to get out of this marriage pact even before he knows Robb married Jeyne.  So if Walder entered the deal in bad faith (spoiler: he did), then Robb isn't beholden to it either.  But more to the point, Robb made a mistake while in a state of physical and emotional trauma; he is willing to "renegotiate" with Walder Frey in good faith, a sentiment which is again not returned.  "Betrayal" is a word better ascribed to the Frey side of this deal.

On 9/29/2017 at 11:02 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Letting himself be crowned king in the north.  Which meant the north would become independent if he should win the war.  Any peace treaty would force the other side to concede the north and allow it to become independent.

Robb has no choice in his acclamation, because what is he going to say?  It's now twice in twenty years that a Stark has gone south at the invitation of his king, and twice they've been unjustly murdered without trial.  The North has a legitimate complaint that they are not treated fairly by the Iron Throne, and Robb has no choice but to accede to his bannermen, or risk losing them.  Feudal politics are intensely personal and as a result, policy often takes on the form of projecting individual characteristics into policy.  Like "strength" but in a more literal sense than we use it today.  Robb is currently in rebellion against the Throne - his bannermen declare in KitN, and he says no - what the hell is his reasoning?  "We don't agree with the Iron Throne and have no reason to listen to the king, we're culturally and religiously quite different from the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, and we've currently taken up arms in large part for those reasons - but really we should stay part of the Seven Kingdoms, I don't want to be king".  That just doesn't make sense, nor would it to his vassals.   And it certainly doesn't follow that "any peace treaty would concede independence to the North".  We have a perfect example of why you are laughably wrong - Dorne.  When Dorne becomes part of the realm, they get to keep a ton of rights and prerogatives that other regions don't get (which leads to the Blackfyre Rebellions).  No reason the North, with it's equally-strange customs, couldn't negotiate a similar peace if they are winning (but haven't completely won) the war, or don't want to be fully independent, and Robb gets to be Prince Robb, instead of Lord Robb.

On 9/29/2017 at 11:02 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Trusting Theon Greyjoy to negotiate with his family.

You are right, this is a mistake, but at some point, Westerosi society considers the two to be brothers, and Robb has to trust someone.

On 9/29/2017 at 11:02 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Not watching Roose Bolton carefully

Explicitly not a mistake.  He has no reason to suspect Roose Bolton, or the Boltons in general, of anything other than a reasonable standard of loyalty.  Even in the midst of the war, we see most of Robb's lords jockeying for position, trying to intimidate him, or otherwise attempting to profit off Robb's youth.  Yes, Roose happens to be more opportunistic and treacherous, but we're never given an indication this is something Robb should have been aware of.

On 9/29/2017 at 11:02 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Killing Rickard Karstark.

Again, not a mistake.  He has no choice.  First off, for all that I sympathize with Rickard Karstark for losing his kids, the guy was a traitor and a murderer just as much as Roose Bolton.  If he pardons Karstark, his entire credibility with his bannermen goes out the window, and he loses the war.  Ned taught him that crimes have consequences, and men must be judged impartially.  And speaking impartially, Rickard Karstark murdered two extremely valuable hostages as part of an unjustified personal vendetta - he deserved his fate, full stop.  That it was bound to alienate the Karstarks and was still a bad option is immaterial - it was lose the Karstarks or lose everyone.

[cpg2016]

On 9/29/2017 at 11:40 AM, Amris said:

 

GRRM's problem before the start of the war of the five kings was that the North was theoretically allied with the Riverlands, the Vale and the Stormlands. So 4 of 7 kingsdoms.

Where are you getting this?  When the War of the Five Kings starts, the North is allied with no one, though they have some reasonable expectation that the Riverlands will join them in return for help against the Lannisters, and perhaps that the Vale will lend a sympathetic ear at least.  The Stormlands, both in theory and IOTL, are firmly split between Renly (then Stannis) and the Iron Throne, with a big chunk seemingly sitting out the war entirely; without the Baratheon brothers in play, they're firmly for Joffrey.  Yes, removing the Vale from the equation (since Lysa should be sympathetic, and we see that the nobles in the Vale are strongly pro-Stark) is tipping the scales, but not by a ton.

Contrasted to that, the Lannister/Baratheon forces (without Renly and Stannis, I mean) consists of the Crownlands, the Stormlands, the Reach, and the Westerlands.  The latter two, especially, are without question the two strongest kingdoms, so Robb is working at a massive competitive disadvantage from Day 1 - in fact, you could argue his need to get into the Riverlands and defend his allies there is a major strategic advantage, and that he'd have been better off abandoning them and defending the Neck, which is effectively impregnable.

And as far disloyal vassals, you have some very selective memory.  The Florents are a very powerful house in the Reach who are disloyal to the Tyrells.  The Stormlands splits into three factions, so not exactly a great example of loyalty.  Every faction gets hurt.  Robb is operating at a structural disadvantage because of geography and demographics, which is offset because Martin makes him the military prodigy of the century.  Kind of telling how you left that out.

[Amris]

11 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Where are you getting this? 

[snip]

From the book?

We both know - but it seems you still need to recall: the Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Arryns were the Alliance that had toppled Aerys II and put Robert on the throne.

And at the point Robert died the four were still - theoretically - on good terms. And none of them cared for the Lannisters.

So GRRM had to find ways to split them. And did. That's what I was pointing out. Rightly, has I think.

[Sullen]

22 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Well it is highly debatable as to whether this constitutes a "betrayal".  As we've seen, Walder is in this for equally opportunistic reasons as Robb, and is actively trying to get out of this marriage pact even before he knows Robb married Jeyne.  So if Walder entered the deal in bad faith (spoiler: he did), then Robb isn't beholden to it either.  But more to the point, Robb made a mistake while in a state of physical and emotional trauma; he is willing to "renegotiate" with Walder Frey in good faith, a sentiment which is again not returned.  "Betrayal" is a word better ascribed to the Frey side of this deal.

I don't think Walder agreed to Catelyn's deal in bad faith to be honest.

The Freys, after all, serve Robb better than any other House pre-Jeyne Westerling. Stevron, Walder's heir and House Frey's only hope for stability once the old man croaks dies serving Robb, Frey men are present at pretty much every single one of Robb's battles and die for him. Not only that, but by allowing Robb to pass, Walder becomes the sole reason that the Northern Rebellion is allowed to perdure more than a couple of months. House Frey committed high treason by siding with Robb, and painted a massive target on his back. Greed took over him and he went all in on the Northern gamble, which ended up screwing him over. Not to mention, even after the Tyrells flock to Joffrey's side, when Arya overhears the Freys talking in secret at Harrenhall, they do not speak of betrayal, but of convincing Robb that the cause is lost and that bending the knee would be the smart thing to do.

Robb first entering the deal in good faith and then acting like an overly sentimental idiot doesn't make his betrayal any less of a betrayal, or any less of a slap in the face for a man who uncharacteristically risked it all on him. Leaving Robb after he makes it clear he can no longer fulfill his end of the bargain (by his own volition) is not betrayal on the Frey's part either, it's common sense. 

Robb's attempts to make amends can hardly be said to be in good faith either, he's not doing it because he feels sorry for going back on his word for the most superficial of reasons, he's doing so because his idiocy lost him the war if Frey doesn't agree to join back with him again. To add insult to injury, he specifically mentions that he needs the Frey men (who have already died for him in considerable numbers) for his suicidal assault on Moat Cailin against Victarion's forces, which are fully garrisoned at that point, seeing as the Kingsmoot has yet to be called.

In any case, Frey was an assh*le for taking a side in the first place, he should have simply let the Stark and Baratheon-Lannister forces duke it out in the first place, he was right to assume early on that the whole thing was none of his business and that whatever side he chose he'd be an oathbreaker. The smart thing would have been to do nothing.

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

I don't think Walder agreed to Catelyn's deal in bad faith to be honest.

The Freys, after all, serve Robb better than any other House pre-Jeyne Westerling. Stevron, Walder's heir and House Frey's only hope for stability once the old man croaks dies serving Robb, Frey men are present at pretty much every single one of Robb's battles and die for him. Not only that, but by allowing Robb to pass, Walder becomes the sole reason that the Northern Rebellion is allowed to perdure more than a couple of months. House Frey committed high treason by siding with Robb, and painted a massive target on his back. Greed took over him and he went all in on the Northern gamble, which ended up screwing him over. Not to mention, even after the Tyrells flock to Joffrey's side, when Arya overhears the Freys talking in secret at Harrenhall, they do not speak of betrayal, but of convincing Robb that the cause is lost and that bending the knee would be the smart thing to do.

Robb first entering the deal in good faith and then acting like an overly sentimental idiot doesn't make his betrayal any less of a betrayal, or any less of a slap in the face for a man who uncharacteristically risked it all on him. Leaving Robb after he makes it clear he can no longer fulfill his end of the bargain (by his own volition) is not betrayal on the Frey's part either, it's common sense. 

Robb's attempts to make amends can hardly be said to be in good faith either, he's not doing it because he feels sorry for going back on his word for the most superficial of reasons, he's doing so because his idiocy lost him the war if Frey doesn't agree to join back with him again. To add insult to injury, he specifically mentions that he needs the Frey men (who have already died for him in considerable numbers) for his suicidal assault on Moat Cailin against Victarion's forces, which are fully garrisoned at that point, seeing as the Kingsmoot has yet to be called.

In any case, Frey was an assh*le for taking a side in the first place, he should have simply let the Stark and Baratheon-Lannister forces duke it out in the first place, he was right to assume early on that the whole thing was none of his business and that whatever side he chose he'd be an oathbreaker. The smart thing would have been to do nothing.

Stevron suggested doing just that in the first book, just waiting for the war to blow itself out.

[Sullen]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

Stevron suggested doing just that in the first book, just waiting for the war to blow itself out.

Stevron was a smart man.

Pretty much the only character I found myself agreeing with without fault throughout the series.

It's a shame that the poor man died, he would have made a great lord.

[falcotron]

6 hours ago, Sullen said:

Not only that, but by allowing Robb to pass, Walder becomes the sole reason that the Northern Rebellion is allowed to perdure more than a couple of months. House Frey committed high treason by siding with Robb, and painted a massive target on his back. Greed took over him and he went all in on the Northern gamble, which ended up screwing him over. Not to mention, even after the Tyrells flock to Joffrey's side, when Arya overhears the Freys talking in secret at Harrenhall, they do not speak of betrayal, but of convincing Robb that the cause is lost and that bending the knee would be the smart thing to do.

I don't know if it's even fair to say that he joined Robb's rebellion out of greed.

When Walder joined up, there was no rebellion, and no treason. It was purely a defensive war against an unprovoked and unsanctioned attack by the Westerlands, with their capital under siege.

It was only after Robb captured Jaime and lifted the siege at Riverrun and sent Tywin running to Harrenhal, and then Ned confessed to treason and was executed, that Robb's men declared him King in the North and it became a war against the crown for independence. And at that point, Walder was already fully committed. 

The thing that was greedy was looking for a reward to do what a leal vassal should have been doing in the first place. In other words, his greed held him back, it didn't drive him forward. And arguably, his greed was on the same side as his caution—or, if you prefer, cowardice. At the time Robb came to Walder, it looked like the Riverlands were going to lose without help, so he'd played safe about as long as he feasibly could.

And remember, Walder didn't stay out of it entirely, he just contributed with as little risk as he could get away with—hunting for and capturing outriders like Marbrand's men instead of joining the larger battles and sieges. So it's not like Tywin would have rewarded him if the Riverlands lost.

[cpg2016]

On 10/3/2017 at 2:09 AM, Amris said:

From the book?

We both know - but it seems you still need to recall: the Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Arryns were the Alliance that had toppled Aerys II and put Robert on the throne.

And at the point Robert died the four were still - theoretically - on good terms. And none of them cared for the Lannisters.

So GRRM had to find ways to split them. And did. That's what I was pointing out. Rightly, has I think.

Actually, the Lannisters were part of that alliance as well, if late: they're the ones that actually take Kings Landing.

Once Robert dies, most of the "alliances" you refer to are gone.  Now Stark & Baratheon have nothing binding them (Robert and Ned's foster-brotherhood).  Theoretically, the Starks, Arryns, and Tullys should be all in due to the Tully kids being in each ruling House, but this isn't an "alliance".  And given that the Wot5K is between a Stark, a Baratheon/Lannister, and two Baratheons, I'm not sure how you can make the case for "alliance".