Jump to content

Narrative Wise, Did Robb Need to be a King?


Sourjapes

Recommended Posts

Think about it. Why not just have Robb declare for Stannis as his father did. He then coordinates his campaign with Stannis, planning to draw Tywin west and leave King's Landing exposed. He meets Jeyne Westerling and breaks his vow to Walder Frey. He loses the Karstarks and Edmure goofs up his strategy, keeping Tywin in the Riverlands. Thus Stannis' assault on Kings Landing fails and a while after that Robb and his army are slaughtered at the Red Wedding.

Narrative wise I see the only thing changing being that once Stannis goes North he has an easier time rallying Northerners to his cause since Robb had declared for him. I don't think it would tip the scales that much though since most of the Stark loyalists have few men anyway and the River Lords are totally defeated and subjugated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sourjapes said:

Think about it. Why not just have Robb declare for Stannis as his father did. He then coordinates his campaign with Stannis, planning to draw Tywin west and leave King's Landing exposed. He meets Jeyne Westerling and breaks his vow to Walder Frey. He loses the Karstarks and Edmure goofs up his strategy, keeping Tywin in the Riverlands. Thus Stannis' assault on Kings Landing fails and a while after that Robb and his army are slaughtered at the Red Wedding.

Narrative wise I see the only thing changing being that once Stannis goes North he has an easier time rallying Northerners to his cause since Robb had declared for him. I don't think it would tip the scales that much though since most of the Stark loyalists have few men anyway and the River Lords are totally defeated and subjugated.

Well, if you are talking narrative-wise, then the simplest narrative would have been for Renly to defeat Stannis, march on King's Landing and execute all the Lannisters, then make peace with Robb so they can both converge on Harranhal and put an end to Tywin and his army. Arya and Sansa would have been rescued, and all the remaining Starks could have returned to Winterfell just in time to alert the kingdom to the impending threat north of the wall. The whole series could have been wrapped up in three, maybe four, books, with Dany flying in to rescue the living just as the hour seemed darkest. Then she could have established herself as Empress of the Known World overseeing the King on the Iron Throne and the sub-king in Winterfell.

The practical problem with Robb declaring for Stannis at that point in the story is that Stannis is still sitting on Dragonstone with his piddling little army of maybe 5k. So even if Robb does draw Tywin west, there is no reason to expect that Stannis will be able to take King's Landing considering Renly outnumbers him by 8:1. No one can imagine how the Red Woman will rearrange the board with her magic. So in the end, Robb declaring for Stannis would likely mean that eventually he would alone face at least three hostile armies: Tywin's 20k, the remnants of Jaime's host at Riverrun, soon to be reassembled at Oxcross under Ser Stafford, and the Renly/Tyrell host of at least 80k. Not very good odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sourjapes said:

Think about it. Why not just have Robb declare for Stannis as his father did. He then coordinates his campaign with Stannis, planning to draw Tywin west and leave King's Landing exposed. He meets Jeyne Westerling and breaks his vow to Walder Frey. He loses the Karstarks and Edmure goofs up his strategy, keeping Tywin in the Riverlands. Thus Stannis' assault on Kings Landing fails and a while after that Robb and his army are slaughtered at the Red Wedding.

I think that if the combined forces of the North, the Riverlands, Dragonstone and large part of the Stormlands, under the command of Stannis Baratheon, with Robb Stark as his lieutenant, hadn't achieved shit, then the reader would have surely revised his opinion of Stannis as a great general, and the Young Wolf as a military wunderkind... 

Also: from the beginning of the series, the author explored what it actually means to be "king". With introducing to us the Beggar King,  with Cat warning Ned that crown would have changed Robert in one of their earliest conversations. So, storywise, GRRM would prefer more kings, not less.

And, thirdly, if you ask "was  it necessary for GRRM to tell this story, instead of a different story" - well, it wasn't. He could have told a different story. So what of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't need it, his vassals declared him king. It made more damage than good. 

2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Robb was trying to become king.  He failed.  He was not a king.  Just a wannabee.

 

No, in fact the other kings/queens are wannabe's since they declared themselves as such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

Think about it. Why not just have Robb declare for Stannis as his father did. He then coordinates his campaign with Stannis, planning to draw Tywin west and leave King's Landing exposed. He meets Jeyne Westerling and breaks his vow to Walder Frey. He loses the Karstarks and Edmure goofs up his strategy, keeping Tywin in the Riverlands. Thus Stannis' assault on Kings Landing fails and a while after that Robb and his army are slaughtered at the Red Wedding.

Narrative wise I see the only thing changing being that once Stannis goes North he has an easier time rallying Northerners to his cause since Robb had declared for him. I don't think it would tip the scales that much though since most of the Stark loyalists have few men anyway and the River Lords are totally defeated and subjugated.

What Robb was thinking, what Robb and his bannermen were thinking doesn't mean a hill of beans.  They lost Robb's Rebellion.  Robb will be nothing more than a footnote in history.  Robb and Balon were rebels who failed to gain their independence from the kingdom.  Robb declaring for Stannis would only prolong the WOTFKs and cause more harm.  Believe it or not, the Red Wedding actually served the better interest of most people because it got rid of one pesky rebellious lord.  It hurt the Starks and their bannermen but it helped end the fighting in the Riverlands.  

1 hour ago, ChuckPunch said:

Robb not accepting Stannis as King, when his father literally died for Stannis' cause, is part of the irony of that story arc.

It's not really ironic because the north had its own agenda by then.  They wanted independence.  

1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

The problem is that, when the Stark family is concerned,  you don't post “opinions”, but rather value judgments, as if the Starks were your personal enemies.

“Rob was trying to become a king”: that's ridiculous, I defy you to find a single quote from the books going in this direction.

Honestly I wonder how you managed to read the first book if half of the main characters are so obnoxious to you…

Dude, you are ignoring logic.   Anyhoo, Robb cannot be king until he wins.  The mayor of my town can't be king just because the people of the town wants him to.  The town is part of the nation, and the nation already has a monarch.  The north is part of the seven kingdoms.  Those lords do not have the right to choose their king because they are all subjects of the monarch on the Iron Throne.  They have to win their independence and the Iron Throne has to surrender and recognize their independence before they can be independent.  You're putting the cart before the horse if you think Robb was the king of the north.  If we're being very generous, Robb was at best, a candidate.  He was nominated before he lost.  He tried and he did not succeed.  It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is stannis did not tell people about the twincest until after robb crowned himself. I think while discussing who to support,he has a few options

1) Sue for peace with the lannisters. Neither he nor his bannerman were ready for this option. I think if i remember correctly he clearly states that they are being "traitor" to the crown

2) Back Stannis, he is not the rightful heir until "twincest" comes out. 

3) Renly, not in tradition when he has an older brother as well.

So, his bannerman put the idea of making him KiTN which got almost unanimous support from his vassals, he simply can't back out now because if he does, he looks weak. Had to go with crowning himself. Hoping to win an impossible war 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, asoiaf_reader said:

Back Stannis, he is not the rightful heir until "twincest" comes out. 

Stannis will never be able to prove that unless Cersei and Jaime make a full confession.  Ned's words won't be forthcoming.  The only other witness is an angry boy who can't walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stormking902 said:

Robb wasnt trying to become a king at all actually his bannerman thrusted him into the position, you are a troll. 

The majority of Robb's bannermen were not even present when Robb took the Crown. Robb was able to tell the men present to not follow Stannis, Renly and even Joffrey like some of the nobles present suggested. No one forced him to become King. 

4 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

Think about it. Why not just have Robb declare for Stannis as his father did.

Because Robb had no idea about the incest and no idea who his father wanted to be King. In actual fact his father died accepting Joffrey as his King. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allardyce said:

Dude, you are ignoring logic.   Anyhoo, Robb cannot be king until he wins.  The mayor of my town can't be king just because the people of the town wants him to.  The town is part of the nation, and the nation already has a monarch.  The north is part of the seven kingdoms.  Those lords do not have the right to choose their king because they are all subjects of the monarch on the Iron Throne.  They have to win their independence and the Iron Throne has to surrender and recognize their independence before they can be independent.  You're putting the cart before the horse if you think Robb was the king of the north.  If we're being very generous, Robb was at best, a candidate.  He was nominated before he lost.  He tried and he did not succeed.  It's that simple.

Dude, what are you talking about? You should READ the post before you quote it. I've never said that Robb was a legit KITN…

On the contrary, I think that accepting this “appointment by acclamation” – very flattering to his ego – was the first of the gross mistakes that led to his downfall.

And again, saying that Robb was “trying to become a king” is simply anti-Stark bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

Think about it. Why not just have Robb declare for Stannis as his father did. He then coordinates his campaign with Stannis, planning to draw Tywin west and leave King's Landing exposed. He meets Jeyne Westerling and breaks his vow to Walder Frey. He loses the Karstarks and Edmure goofs up his strategy, keeping Tywin in the Riverlands. Thus Stannis' assault on Kings Landing fails and a while after that Robb and his army are slaughtered at the Red Wedding.

Narrative wise I see the only thing changing being that once Stannis goes North he has an easier time rallying Northerners to his cause since Robb had declared for him. I don't think it would tip the scales that much though since most of the Stark loyalists have few men anyway and the River Lords are totally defeated and subjugated.

why do you want to rewrite the story? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Robb needed to be king so he could make a will leaving the North to Jon, so Jon can legitimately be KITN, that is the whole point and pay off. Stannis declaring so late and thus Robb not declaring for him is an unnatural plot contrivance, perhaps the biggest in the story, and it was done because Jon, King of Winter, is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Dude, what are you talking about? You should READ the post before you quote it. I've never said that Robb was a legit KITN…

On the contrary, I think that accepting this “appointment by acclamation” – very flattering to his ego – was the first of the gross mistakes that led to his downfall.

And again, saying that Robb was “trying to become a king” is simply anti-Stark bullshit.

You do realise that the two bolded sentences are direct contradictions, yes? You say Robb's not really a King, and yet you know that what he's doing, should he succeed, will inevitably make him a King. In what way is he not trying to become a King?

Sure, maybe he doesn't particularly want to be King, but that doesn't mean he's not trying to do so. I don't particularly want to go to work in the morning, but when I'm on the way, I'm still trying to get there, regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another narrative reason, is that by being declared King in the North, and accepting the title, Robb is put in opposition to Stannis... Stannis won't accept Robb trying to "steal half his Kingdom", and thus no alliance can be made between the two factions. Catelyn, I think, puts this on the page around the time she meets Stannis and Renly for the parley... She realises that, should Stannis defeat the Lannisters with his newfound strength and secure King's Landing, he would come for Robb after that. 

Also, the King's Blood and leeches that Stannis burned really wouldn't have had the same poetry to it if the 3 "targets" weren't all Kings. 

And there's the whole burden of being a King thing that Robb goes through. Along with the idea that, unlike the other Kings who declare themselves King and expect their rightful support, Robb is declared King by his vassals... He never intended to make himself a King, but once he's pushed into that position, he tries to do his best in it. 

Finally, "the War of the Four Kings and the Rebelling Lord Paramount" doesn't have a good ring to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...