Varysblackfyre321

If not Jon who?

100 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Oberyion Martennister said:

It's possible Robb could have learned the truth about his brothers and known they were alive

Still for the time Jon was more than suitable choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not necessarily. They can be detained indefinitely, the NW however is a more appealing alternative.

 

Yes, it's a more appealing alternative.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I withdraw my citation of Jon's ignorance  to prove my point. He isnt the resident NW historian, hell he honestly came into the NW not even knowing just who make up the bulk of its membership. There really is no reason for him to have known of such cases..

No, Jon is not the resident NW historian, but while he did go to the NW rather ignorant of what the institution had been reduced to, we also find out that he learned at some point information about the history of the Watch from Benjen and from Sam and maybe from other sources. By the time of ADwD, he had become quite familiar with "NW lore". Yet, it is true that it is not indicated that he or, for that matter, anyone else in the book has heard of such precedents. (Otherwise this discussion would be all moot.) All I'm saying is that the existence of such precedents seems logically likely, regardless of who has heard about it. I still maintain that Stannis's offer to Jon is an altogether different situation than knowledge about Robb's will would be. I would really like Jon to learn about it, even if nothing comes from it in the end, the mere knowledge would mean a lot to him personally.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We know such things have occurred before, sure. Truth be told I don't even think Robb cared much for precedent, he was going to name Jon his heir no matter what.

Totally possible. He was King after all, and laws can be and are changed when it is deemed necessary.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If a house dies out, its responsibilities and land can simply be delegated by the king to another. 

 LOL, that is so, but tell that to all those lords frantic with succession issues (Tywin, for example). Robb, however, wasn't just a lord, he was a king at this point, and in the case of kings, especially at wartime, solving succession issues is simply vital.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I have to say I appreciate the discussion

 

I do, too.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It's his duty to do what it is best for his people, the lords who chose him to fight this ego-centric and revenge fueled war may have their pride hurt just as the last stark king Submitted to the dragon Robb could have submitted to the lion, at this point nearly all hope of actually winning this war was lost

I don't see the war as ego-centric, and it certainly went beyond revenge. Robb was chosen to be the king of an independent North. That was practically his mandate, in a political situation where the North had a realistic chance to win independence. It was his job to defend this independence.

I can't tell how much hope of winning the war there was at the point where Robb made his will. I can tell, however, that he did not seem to have given up. I can't blame him for that. He had won his battles, and while it is one of the morals of his story that it is possible to win battles and still lose the war, he couldn't possibly be aware of that moral while he was still inside events.

Besides, it is a question whether submitting is always the best option when you can't win any more. Torrhen Stark's choice wasn't quite the same as Robb's. Just to mention one small difference, Aegon wanted to rule the whole of Westeros, but he had no personal feelings of revenge against the Starks or anyone else. He wanted homage, some tax, and then he was ready to leave the North alone. Even at the cost of Torrhen Stark's pride, the North paid a reasonable price for being spared by the biggest bully in the contemporary world (although Aegon had no morally justifiable right to any of it - but that's another question). But even then, the Dornish chose resistance and it worked for them (though it didn't work for any other regions). The Lannisters, however, were totally different from Aegon the Conqueror, as their actions had already shown. The North would have to expect retaliation in any case. Besides, there have been precedents in history when not submitting to a victorious conqueror had the value of a statement on moral courage: "You may be stronger, but it does not mean you are right." Or: "You may kill me, but you cannot truly defeat me." Such a stance may have a value especially in the case of a lost war of independence. It can keep up the spirit of independence, of resistance, it can even lead to political gain in the long run. I do think we can witness something like that in the North. Everyone knows that Robb wasn't defeated in battle, he didn't bend the knee, he was betrayed and assassinated by means of a despicable plot, and this knowledge may continue to be a source of strength and moral courage for Northerners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great post, @Julia H.! I completely agree w/ the points you made. :cheers:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like the thenn marriage as it will guarantee jon (if hes alive) some allies and at least two hundred men for his army. Plus, i thing the knives in the dark was to release him from his vows so he could become king in the north. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

That's a great post, @Julia H.! I completely agree w/ the points you made. :cheers:

 

Thanks. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob and Jon grew up as brothers. I think Ned made sure of that. For Rob, there would be very little choice. If he knew Bran or Rickon were alive, I think he'd pick Jon as regent until Bran was ready anyway. I don't see any evidence that Rob revered the NW enough to care about their oaths. Nor is there much affiliation with other houses in the North or otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As the the question in the op in honestly don't see anyone else Robb could have named.

As for Jon getting our of the watch. I don't think it's that hard to be honest. The watch itself has no power to stop him, and if the king in the north/The Lord of winterfell was not going to send Jons head back to the wall, than who is.

It's all well and good to argue legal precedent but in this case they are irrelevant, as those who would be enforcing said laws wont be, the are in fact the same people breaking them.The watch exists because of the support of the north and the forbearance of house stark in particular(The crown in more recent years to an extent). The watch might complain but if Robb wanted Jon they would be powerless to stop it.

Edited by Back door hodor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On January 1, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Julia H. said:

 LOL, that is so, but tell that to all those lords frantic with succession issues (Tywin, for example). Robb, however, wasn't just a lord, he was a king at this point, and in the case of kings, especially at wartime, solving succession issues is simply vital.

On December 31, 2017 at 0:18 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Depending on the house no? If the house is relatively minor and has died out why no distribute it's land and titles to a house that is strong and has been proven loyal(as well as has a claim hopefully). The house has much more reason to fight for you and will have an easier ability to make repairs of the land without so much assistance.  Or if not an immediate threat to security wait until the war is over to bless this to a truly worthy vassal.

If the watch were to make exceptions for noble houses in threat of dying obviously it couldn't be bastards. They weren't adequately taught to rule, not being apart of the line of succession since birth. 3rd or 4rth sons at least are those of noble houses who join the watch but they may also may prove unreliable since they've been put at the bottom of succession line and likely would not have had the same pressures put on them.

And you say the ruling monarchy can simply opt to not release those in the watch they sentenced there: whose the ruling monarchy?

Let's say Robb loses(the RW didn't happen and Robb publicly names Jon his heir) yet the watch accepted Robb's offer of a 100 men to get Jon released, the IT will have that much more difficult time putting down this rebellion. 

Truth be told looking at  Robb's desperate straights they have very good reason to say no.

And hope for that matter Robb loses as quickly as possible.

If the NW loses the entire favor of the IT who  they rely on a lot to get recruits they're screwed.100 men may seem a lot now, but how many men does the watch get out the KL dungeon or provinces? Dozens a year surely. Across the provinces at least. If that stops they're going to be hurt. 

Such is the threat the watch faces, in these types of wars its best to stay as neutral as possible because they can't really risk pissing off the winner. And I have to admit you're right, the plebs won't really get up in arms that the nobles are getting special treatment-story of their life huh? But it can be divisive to the Watch's higher command. I mean they have people with former loyalties to the Starks, lanisters, Targaryians and even the Tyrells. The thing primarely makes it so that all these men can work for the mission is that like it or not they're in this together, that their families strifes and blood-feuds aren't their own, that what had happened before their time of the watch whether they had fought on opposing sides of the war or allies won't make impact their cohesiveness. If a man is the last person with blood to a major house key to winning a war it would help if his brother whose family on the other side of that war doesn't have reason to kill him. 

On January 1, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Julia H. said:

don't see the war as ego-centric, and it certainly went beyond revenge. Robb was chosen to be the king of an independent North. That was practically his mandate, in a political situation where the North had a realistic chance to win independence. It was his job to defend this independence.

It is certianly ego-centric. Why is a Stark king important to have for the north? Because it'd be a glorious thing! Not about security(they would be ripe prey for the IB pillaging), or economics(for they never make a complaint for anything involving having been overtaxed by the IT), or really even tyranny(for they have no real proof of the IT of having executed Ned unjustly, nor would they much care what Ned did), they want an independent north because it'd be glorious.The Riverlands have the most just cause for secesion for being the brunt of unprovoked(on their part), Laninster aggression. It is revenge fueled. Robb says flat-out he will not bend the knee to his father's killers. His motive for continuing this war rested upon wanting to avenge a wrong done his family. It wasn't political it was entirely a filial sense of obligation to his patriarch. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018. 01. 02. at 11:10 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Depending on the house no? If the house is relatively minor and has died out why no distribute it's land and titles to a house that is strong and has been proven loyal(as well as has a claim hopefully). The house has much more reason to fight for you and will have an easier ability to make repairs of the land without so much assistance.  Or if not an immediate threat to security wait until the war is over to bless this to a truly worthy vassal.

If the watch were to make exceptions for noble houses in threat of dying obviously it couldn't be bastards. They weren't adequately taught to rule, not being apart of the line of succession since birth. 3rd or 4rth sons at least are those of noble houses who join the watch but they may also may prove unreliable since they've been put at the bottom of succession line and likely would not have had the same pressures put on them.

And you say the ruling monarchy can simply opt to not release those in the watch they sentenced there: whose the ruling monarchy?

Let's say Robb loses(the RW didn't happen and Robb publicly names Jon his heir) yet the watch accepted Robb's offer of a 100 men to get Jon released, the IT will have that much more difficult time putting down this rebellion. 

Truth be told looking at  Robb's desperate straights they have very good reason to say no.

And hope for that matter Robb loses as quickly as possible.

If the NW loses the entire favor of the IT who  they rely on a lot to get recruits they're screwed.100 men may seem a lot now, but how many men does the watch get out the KL dungeon or provinces? Dozens a year surely. Across the provinces at least. If that stops they're going to be hurt. 

Such is the threat the watch faces, in these types of wars its best to stay as neutral as possible because they can't really risk pissing off the winner. And I have to admit you're right, the plebs won't really get up in arms that the nobles are getting special treatment-story of their life huh? But it can be divisive to the Watch's higher command. I mean they have people with former loyalties to the Starks, lanisters, Targaryians and even the Tyrells. The thing primarely makes it so that all these men can work for the mission is that like it or not they're in this together, that their families strifes and blood-feuds aren't their own, that what had happened before their time of the watch whether they had fought on opposing sides of the war or allies won't make impact their cohesiveness. If a man is the last person with blood to a major house key to winning a war it would help if his brother whose family on the other side of that war doesn't have reason to kill him. 

Sure, a request to the NW can play out in various ways. Your scenarios are possible, but so are others, e.g. the House in question is a stalwart  supporter of the King or the Lord Paramount, who therefore supports the continuation of the family even at the cost of having to reclaim the last living male descendant from the NW. On the other hand, it is also possible that the King favours a House that is distantly related to the one that is about to die out and wants to reward that House. Yes, the Watch may also take several factors into consideration. I'm quite certain that both of us could imagine an infinite number of scenarios, and I would be very hurt if you said yours are likely but mine are not. ^_^ As I've said before, there must be a precedent for practically every sort of political situation over 8000 years. (That's a longer time than in real human history the history of the wheel or the history of writing.)

My suggestion, which started this discussion, was that there must have been a precedent in the history of Westeros when a lord was in such desperate need of  an heir that he wanted to reclaim a son or a nephew, maybe even a bastard from the NW - his last remaining male relative, who once might have seemed disposable but now was the only way to continue the family, which is a goal that every lord considers to be an important priority. Of course, the request may have been granted and it may have been refused - there may well be precedents for both. All political goals and decisions in Westeros are subject to the power structure of the moment, the relative power and the influence of everyone involved. There is no general formula to tell us what must happen every time when such a request is made. 

As for what the Watch would have said if Robb had indeed made this request, in my opinion it is impossible to tell. To start with, Robb actually making this request supposes that either there was no Red Wedding, or Robb survived it and remained in a position to still worry about an heir, to still negotiate with the Watch. What other things might also be different in this case? How long would it take before the information of Robb's decision reached the NW, and what further changes would occur in the meantime? The W5K operates on the principles of chaos theory and the butterfly effect: If you change one tiny detail (e.g. Robb doesn't get killed in the RW), it will start further changes, which may (and probably will) produce a drastically different end-result, so the long-term outcome is totally unpredictable. Therefore we can't start with the premise that Robb would make this request to the Watch in the same circumstances, as when he did not make it, because the circumstances would have to be different. For the same reason, it is also impossible to predict what factors the Watch would take into consideration at a given moment in an alternative story. 

On 2018. 01. 02. at 11:10 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is certianly ego-centric. Why is a Stark king important to have for the north? Because it'd be a glorious thing! Not about security(they would be ripe prey for the IB pillaging), or economics(for they never make a complaint for anything involving having been overtaxed by the IT), or really even tyranny(for they have no real proof of the IT of having executed Ned unjustly, nor would they much care what Ned did), they want an independent north because it'd be glorious.The Riverlands have the most just cause for secesion for being the brunt of unprovoked(on their part), Laninster aggression. It is revenge fueled. Robb says flat-out he will not bend the knee to his father's killers. His motive for continuing this war rested upon wanting to avenge a wrong done his family. It wasn't political it was entirely a filial sense of obligation to his patriarch

 

Glory: If anyone, Northerners don't seem to be a people who are crazy about glory in general. This is a land with no knight culture, grand tourneys or singers following every movement of lords. This is a land where harsh winters make survival a struggle from time to time. These people are as practical and down-to-earth as you get in the Seven Kingdoms. 

A Stark king is important because the Starks have been the rulers of the North for thousands of years and their presence means stability. For three hundred years, it didn't matter that the Stark who ruled them wasn't called a king, because they were left alone. Now, the IT threatens the actual rulers of the North, threatening with this stability, tradition, continuity. Calling the current Stark a king and choosing independence means that they refuse a foreign power that has recently become  a harmful influence in the North.    

They have no idea that Ned was executed unjustly? And do you think that's enough? Suppose in a real life country, a state governor goes to the federal capital and gets executed - would it be enough for his voters and his family that they can't be sure the execution was unjust? Nope. Ned was the ruler of the North in all but name, and he happened to be a respected and popular leader. The IT was nothing to Northerners, while Ned was the one who settled the differences of the lords, who led them in war, who was credited with safe roads for travellers and safe laws for everyone. Ned represented law and order. Torrhen Stark had submitted to the IT for continued stability in the North. The North did not rebel when the dragons died out because the Targaryens still kept their side of the agreement (so much about glory). Executing the de facto ruler of the country, however, is a violation of the agreement, and the IT should give a very good and credible reason for it. When Aerys II executed the Lord Paramount of the North as well as his heir and then for no reason at all, wanted to execute Ned, as well as the Lord Paramount of another region, a large-scale rebellion started, and the Targaryen dynasty was over. Now another king executed the de facto ruler of the North. The agreement was once again violated, causing disturbance and instability. The IT had become a liability - no reason for Northerners to trust a distant king in King's Landing any longer.

The reasons for Robb / the North to go to war:

- To free Ned while Ned is still alive (and his two daughters while it seems possible).

- Joffrey demands that Robb and Catelyn go to King's Landing and bend the knee. At this point this can be a trap. The North remembers Brandon Stark and his father and how they died. Going to King's Landing would be a huge risk: Both Robb and Catelyn may end up in the dungeons or executed, and then what? Will Bran have to go there next "to bend the knee"? Should the North be left open to bullying and aggression from the South just because they would do everything to please a king they have no reason to like or respect or trust? However, not going to King's Landing when the king demands it equals rebellion in itself. On the part of a king, this is one of the best ways to force a vassal into open rebellion.  

- With the Riverlands attacked, it is Robb's duty to help his grandfather. Marriage is a political alliance among high lords. It may make things difficult, but there it is. The purpose of an alliance is to have an ally when trouble comes, and the Starks and Tullys are allies.  

- Personal emotions: grief, revenge, indignation over a huge injustice, filial duty.

- Political reality: The Lannisters cannot be trusted to make peace. Everyone has heard about Castamere as well as about Rhaegar's children. Tywin does seem to like to have the whole family of his opponents massacred, and his grandson doesn't seem to be better, not from a Northern viewpoint. 

But keep your opinion in any case. I have mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Julia H. said:

lory: If anyone, Northerners don't seem to be a people who are crazy about glory in general. This is a land with no knight culture, grand tourneys or singers following every movement of lords. This is a land where harsh winters make survival a struggle from time to time. These people are as practical and down-to-earth as you get in the Seven Kingdoms.

There is knight culture and there are singers who've taken up with Nobles(Sansa recounts the one who stocked up as a guest of house stark at winterfell), though this was a short stay and may be an exception to the rule. torrnies aren't frequent there true. But just to be clear just because they may be more I guess I'd prudent in their spending than the south doesn't mean isn't seen as a thing the northern nobility yearn for, conquerors such as Aegon, and stories of glorious acts in war are touted out to them as being something everyone should aspire to. 

11 hours ago, Julia H. said:

portant because the Starks have been the rulers of the North for thousands of years and their presence means stability. For three hundred years, it didn't matter that the Stark who ruled them wasn't called a king, because they were left alone. Now, the IT threatens the actual rulers of the North, threatening with this stability, tradition, continuity. Calling the current Stark a king and choosing independence means that they refuse a foreign power that has recently become  a harmful influence in the North

This isn't a foreighn power. Though they've grown accustomed to dealing with the Starks they clearly recognized the moment King Torren bent the knee to Aegon they'd be apart of the empire Aegon was building in Westeroes. Hell the very justification Greatjon uses isn't so much the north had always been a sovereign power but because since the Targaryians aren't around anymore it's ok to secede. And nothing the IT has done had adequately showed the entire Stark's position as wardens of the north is actually under threat. The II when it launched its rebellion was able to keep the greyjoys (who've the closet relationship to King Harren the last Ironborn King), as the ruling house.   Again they've no idea of the twincest. So far as they know based on their information Ned did try to usurp his best friend's children throne.

 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

They have no idea that Ned was executed unjustly? And do you think that's enough? Suppose in a real life country, a state governor goes to the federal capital and gets executed - would it be enough for his voters and his family that they can't be sure the execution was unjust?

No like I stated Robb would have led the r rebellion to save Ned no matter what Ned actually did. 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Ned was the ruler of the North in all but name, and he happened to be a respected and popular leader. The IT was nothing to Northerners, while Ned was the one who settled the differences of the lords, who led them in war, who was credited with safe roads for travellers and safe laws for everyone.

More of a govenore truth be told.  Which a lot of the northern respected for his and his family's competency as such. 

 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The North did not rebel when the dragons died out because the Targaryens still kept their side of the agreement (so much about glory).

And Torren much of the shame of the north's ability at the time did not oppose Aegon and suffer a glorious defeat. 

 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Executing the de facto ruler of the country, however, is a violation of the agreement, and the IT should give a very good and credible reason for it.

They did. Ned had committed treason by trying to usurp his BFF's children's throne and had even confessed to it. They don't care. 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Joffrey demands that Robb and Catelyn go to King's Landing and bend the knee. At this point this can be a trap. The North remembers Brandon Stark and his father and how they died.

It'd be a pointless trap given he's Brandon and Rickon would be at winterfell. 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Will Bran have to go there next "to bend the knee"? Should the North be left open to bullying and aggression from the South just because they would do everything to please a

Presuming Robb and Catelyn had been arrested? Yeah, no one would be stupid enough to actually fall for the same trick twice. If They take Robb and Catelyn they'd be literaly insane to expect Brandon and Rickon to delivered.

 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

However, not going to King's Landing when the king demands it equals rebellion in itself. On the part of a king, this is one of the best ways to force a vassal into open rebellion.  

Robb was already in open rebellion.

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

With the Riverlands attacked, it is Robb's duty to help his grandfather. Marriage is a political alliance among high lords. It may make things difficult, but there it is. The purpose of an alliance is to have an ally when trouble comes, and the Starks and Tullys are allies

And?

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Personal emotions: grief, revenge, indignation over a huge injustice, filial duty.

Filial duty is Robb's motivation based on his words it's not politics driving it. 

 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

al reality: The Lannisters cannot be trusted to make peace. Everyone has heard about Castamere as well as about Rhaegar's children. Tywin does seem to like to have the whole family of his opponents massacred, and his grandson doesn't seem to be better, not from a Northern viewpoint. 

It's a little diffrent. There was no offer of mercy made there, only utter annihilation, here Robb is potentially granted being an out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Julia H. said:

As for what the Watch would have said if Robb had indeed made this request, in my opinion it is impossible to tell. To start with, Robb actually making this request supposes that either there was no Red Wedding, or Robb survived it and remained in a position to still worry about an heir, to still negotiate with the Watch. What other things might also be different in this case? Not much. How long would it take before the information of Robb's decision reached the NW, and what further changes would occur in the meantime?  Perhaps Robb would turned the entire war on its head and no longer in a vulnerable position. But that would kinda negate the need for Jon. The W5K operates on the principles of chaos theory and the butterfly effect: If you change one tiny detail (e.g. Robb doesn't get killed in the RW), it will start further changes, which may (and probably will) produce a drastically different end-result, so the long-term outcome is totally unpredictable. Therefore we can't start with the premise that Robb would make this request to the Watch in the same circumstances, as when he did not make it, because the circumstances would have to be different. I'm sorry what? Are you saying we can't say for certian Robb would have made this request without the RW?He still would have made the request for Jon RW or no.For the same reason, it is also impossible to predict what factors the Watch would take into consideration at a given moment in an alternative story.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

52 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There is knight culture and there are singers who've taken up with Nobles(Sansa recounts the one who stocked up as a guest of house stark at winterfell), though this was a short stay and may be an exception to the rule. torrnies aren't frequent there true. But just to be clear just because they may be more I guess I'd prudent in their spending than the south doesn't mean isn't seen as a thing the northern nobility yearn for, conquerors such as Aegon, and stories of glorious acts in war are touted out to them as being something everyone should aspire to. 

Now where is the text that proves Northerners want independence because it's so glorious? 

Quote

This isn't a foreighn power. Though they've grown accustomed to dealing with the Starks they clearly recognized the moment King Torren bent the knee to Aegon they'd be apart of the empire Aegon was building in Westeroes. Hell the very justification Greatjon uses isn't so much the north had always been a sovereign power but because since the Targaryians aren't around anymore it's ok to secede. And nothing the IT has done had adequately showed the entire Stark's position as wardens of the north is actually under threat. The II when it launched its rebellion was able to keep the greyjoys (who've the closet relationship to King Harren the last Ironborn King), as the ruling house.   Again they've no idea of the twincest. So far as they know based on their information Ned did try to usurp his best friend's children throne.

Countries usually notice when they are conquered by a foreign power. Being forced to become part of a new empire doesn't make the invading power any less foreign. Conquerors may have this illusion, but it is still just an illusion. The North had remained culturally different, and none of the lords had any personal ties to the empire. 

The Greatjon's argument is about the dragons. It is clear reference to the fact that the North submitted to a military power with a greatly superior weapon than what anyone else had. The IT doesn't have that superior weapon now, so they can secede. That's as practical as it gets. No reason to be part of an empire any more, so why should they be?

As for Balon, he wasn't executed, it is true. But Ned was. That little fact alone would make the two situations seem to be entirely different. In addition, Balon was spared and pardoned by a totally different king.

Quote

They did. Ned had committed treason by trying to usurp his BFF's children's throne and had even confessed to it. They don't care. 

That was in King's Landing. Everyone knows that confessions can be extracted through torture and threats. There was no evidence shown to them, no fair trial for Ned, no opportunity for Northerners to listen to Ned's side of the story. There was nothing that could justify the execution of their de facto ruler whom they had known and trusted by someone thy didn't know and had no reason to trust.

Quote

It'd be a pointless trap given he's Brandon and Rickon would be at winterfell. 

Presuming Robb and Catelyn had been arrested? Yeah, no one would be stupid enough to actually fall for the same trick twice. If They take Robb and Catelyn they'd be literaly insane to expect Brandon and Rickon to delivered.

A "pointless trap" that would result in pointless deaths and would also leave two small kids as the only surviving Stark males, which would be rather convenient for the Lannisters. If they weren't executed, they would be taken into royal custody and brought up either in King's Landing as the IT's puppets and hostages or by a southern "Lord Protector". Who could be expected to protect them against the IT in a North that would be left without an adult ruler?

You say no one would be stupid enough to actually fall for the same trick twice. The problem is that from a Northern viewpoint, the invitation of Robb and Cat to King's Landing may already have a certain déjá vu feeling about it and rightly so.  

Quote

 

It's a little diffrent. There was no offer of mercy made there, only utter annihilation, here Robb is potentially granted being an out. 

Too bad his father has just been executed by the same family after being offered and having accepted a deal. 

The fact is Tywin Lannister is not famous for being merciful. He is famous for annihilating families who oppose him, down to the babies. I suspect Tywin is generally happy enough to have this reputation - unfortunately, it makes it difficult for opponents to trust him. Then there are Cersei and Joffrey, family members Catelyn and Robb had met. Neither of them had inspired trust, to say the least. 

Edited by Julia H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

That was in King's Landing. Everyone knows that confessions can be extracted through torture and threats. There was no evidence shown to them, no fair trial for Ned, no opportunity for Northerners to listen to Ned's side of the story. There was nothing that could justify the execution of their de facto ruler whom they had known and trusted by someone thy didn't know and had no reason to trust.

Plus Ned had no real reason to lie. Had he kept his mouth shut about the incest his daughter would have been Queen. One has to ask themselves why on earth would the most honorable man in the realm want to steal the Throne from his future goodson and give it to Stannis? Someone who has no friends, Stannis, the one man who would not reward Eddard Stark for doing what he did. He'd say it was his duty to give him the Throne, then tell him to go North and call his banners so they can fight for his claim. It's all really an odd happenstance, a real head-scratcher when you step back and look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

 

As for what the Watch would have said if Robb had indeed made this request, in my opinion it is impossible to tell. To start with, Robb actually making this request supposes that either there was no Red Wedding, or Robb survived it and remained in a position to still worry about an heir, to still negotiate with the Watch. What other things might also be different in this case? Not much. How long would it take before the information of Robb's decision reached the NW, and what further changes would occur in the meantime?  Perhaps Robb would turned the entire war on its head and no longer in a vulnerable position. But that would kinda negate the need for Jon. The W5K operates on the principles of chaos theory and the butterfly effect: If you change one tiny detail (e.g. Robb doesn't get killed in the RW), it will start further changes, which may (and probably will) produce a drastically different end-result, so the long-term outcome is totally unpredictable. Therefore we can't start with the premise that Robb would make this request to the Watch in the same circumstances, as when he did not make it, because the circumstances would have to be different. I'm sorry what? Are you saying we can't say for certian Robb would have made this request without the RW?He still would have made the request for Jon RW or no.For the same reason, it is also impossible to predict what factors the Watch would take into consideration at a given moment in an alternative story.  

 

 

 

@Varysblackfyre321, in reply to your bolded comments in my post:

Let me try to explain this once more. 

A fact from the book: Robb intended to make Jon his heir and ask the NW to release him. His death during the Red Wedding, soon after he made this plan, prevented him from carrying out this plan.

You wondered what the NW would have replied if Robb had indeed made this request. 

My opinion: Robb made this decision en route to a death trap, during a journey which resulted in his death. For him to actually turn to the NW and make this request would mean that he doesn't die during the Red Wedding. That's, of course, a hypothetical scenario, which could only happen either if there was no Red Wedding at all or if Robb survived the Red Wedding. To actually turn to the NW with this request, he would also need to be free (not a captive) and still have enough power and influence to negotiate with the NW. This couldn't happen without some of the initial conditions being different in some way.

Take the version where there is no Red Wedding. Why would there be no Red Wedding? Would we have a different kind of Walder Frey than the one in the story? Would Robb have something to offer to the Freys that makes it worthwhile for them to keep to the alliance? (There is no such thing in the actual story.) Would Walder Frey change his mind because of some bad news he hears about the Lannisters? What would it be and how would it change the entire political situation? Would there be no Red Wedding because someone has informed Robb about the plot? So what would Robb do next? 

Take the version that there is a Red Wedding, but Robb survives and doesn't lose most of his army. Would that mean that he has defeated the Freys and now he has the Twins? And so on.

I didn't say that Robb wouldn't make this request to the NW without the RW. I said it was because of the RW that he didn't make the request. For Robb to be able to make this request would mean that several important circumstances (at least one of the initial conditions and the direct and indirect results) are different (i.e. the ones that are directly related to the RW and its outcome). In a chaotic system, even slightly different conditions can produce very different results, which are unpredictable in the long run. Therefore we don't know what the actual circumstances would be that the NW might take into consideration when responding to Robb's request when it was finally made. That means there is no way to say what their response would be. 

Edited by Julia H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Plus Ned had no real reason to lie. Had he kept his mouth shut about the incest his daughter would have been Queen. One has to ask themselves why on earth would the most honorable man in the realm want to steal the Throne from his future goodson and give it to Stannis? Someone who has no friends, Stannis, the one man who would not reward Eddard Stark for doing what he did. He'd say it was his duty to give him the Throne, then tell him to go North and call his banners so they can fight for his claim. It's all really an odd happenstance, a real head-scratcher when you step back and look at it.

That's a very good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Plus Ned had no real reason to lie. Had he kept his mouth shut about the incest his daughter would have been Queen. One has to ask themselves why on earth would the most honorable man in the realm want to steal the Throne from his future goodson and give it to Stannis? Someone who has no friends, Stannis, the one man who would not reward Eddard Stark for doing what he did. He'd say it was his duty to give him the Throne, then tell him to go North and call his banners so they can fight for his claim. It's all really an odd happenstance, a real head-scratcher when you step back and look at it.

I agree that giving your life for the sole reason for Stannis to sit on the throne is so unworthy. And how Stannis viewed Robb is disgusting. He even welcomed his death, the son of the man who gave away his life for his claim, which lead to Robb's rebellion. 

Ned had no business cleaning after Robert's mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

here was no evidence shown to them, no fair trial for Ned, no opportunity for Northerners to listen to Ned's side of the story. There was nothing that could justify the execution of their de facto ruler whom they had known and trusted by someone thy didn't know and had no reason to trust.

Yeah there was nothing. Even though that's clearly what Ned would be reported of doing given time, Robb would still react the same way. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Countries usually notice when they are conquered by a foreign power. Being forced to become part of a new empire doesn't make the invading power any less foreign. Conquerors may have this illusion, but it is still just an illusion. The North had remained culturally different, and none of the lords had any personal ties to the empire. 

No personal ties? Pretty sure there have been marriages crafted between houses throughout the realm from all provinces.  

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

A "pointless trap" that would result in pointless deaths and would also leave two small kids as the only surviving Stark males, which would be rather convenient for the Lannisters. If they weren't executed, they would be taken into royal custody and brought up either in King's Landing as the IT's puppets and hostages or by a southern "Lord Protector". Who could be expected to protect them against the IT in a North that would be left without an adult ruler?

The Karstarks who are seen as the being the closet to the Stark or their uncles Edmure or Blackfish could lead the uprising. I mean if Catelyn and Robb had already come to KL it really shows they're willingly to submit. 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

hat was in King's Landing. Everyone knows that confessions can be extracted through torture and threats. There was no evidence shown to them, no fair trial for Ned, no opportunity for Northerners to listen to Ned's side of the story.

To torture a man of Ned's status(even if traitor), would be seen as extremely unusual. And there really doesn't need to be trial if the king catches a lord having committed treason against his liege lord. 

Like, Ned didn't need to really give the deserter a trial where everyone including a representives of the NW to attend to see Ned's judgement was just.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Greatjon's argument is about the dragons. It is clear reference to the fact that the North submitted to a military power with a greatly superior weapon than what anyone else had. The IT doesn't have that superior weapon now, so they can secede. That's as practical as it gets. No reason to be part of an empire any more, so why should they be?

Upon revisiting his speech I have to concede at least in part to your point. I had the notion he was referring to the Targaryian house the way  people have refer to the lanisters as lions or mornings as bears

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Too bad his father has just been executed by the same family after being offered and having accepted a deal

He doesn't really know that. Nor would that really effect his drive to win or die trying.

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Tywin Lannister is not famous for being merciful. He is famous for annihilating families who oppose him, down to the babies. I suspect Tywin is generally happy enough to have this reputation - unfortunately, it makes it difficult for opponents to trust him. Then there are Cersei and Joffrey, family members Catelyn and Robb had met. Neither of them had inspired trust, to say the least. 

So any offer of mercy should be given great consideration given Tywin's reputation of never offering it to his opposition. Joffery(though terrible) only really gave back to what Robb gave. Catelyn I don't remember any sort of interaction between Joffery outside the greeting they had when Robert came. Or Catelyn really. Could be totally wrong if so please correct me.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

As for Balon, he wasn't executed, it is true. But Ned was. That little fact alone would make the two situations seem to be entirely different. In addition, Balon was spared and pardoned by a totally different king

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Plus Ned had no real reason to lie. Had he kept his mouth shut about the incest his daughter would have been Queen. One has to ask themselves why on earth would the most honorable man in the realm want to steal the Throne from his future goodson and give it to Stannis? Someone who has no friends, Stannis, the one man who would not reward Eddard Stark for doing what he did. He'd say it was his duty to give him the Throne, then tell him to go North and call his banners so they can fight for his claim. It's all really an odd happenstance, a real head-scratcher when you step back and look at it.

One has to also ask why the IT would risk war with the North and Riverlands (again), if they didn't have good reason. And the thought of Ned having been dishonorable is slightly more believable than Robert having been cuck holded by his wife's' own twin and the kids seen as Robert's trueborn are the result of that inchest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now