What was Robb going to do to force the Crown to grant the North independence?

[Istakhr]

Well, Dorne did successfully resisted Aegon's conquest, even though they had been successfully invaded before by Andals and the Rhyonar. The North is bigger, more populous, and has equally harsh conditions to foreigners, not to mention even more loyalty for House Stark.

Did Aegon try to invade Dorne? I was under the impression that Targaryan's no longer had dragons when the decided to annex Dorne.

[Burning down the House]

The only chance that Robb had to ever get the Iron Throne to give up claim to his kingdom was to win in the field. He needed to weaken the southern forces to the point the the North had the greater military power. And once Highgarden joined the Lannisters Robbs chance at staying king were pretty slim.

[Castel]

Well, Dorne did successfully resisted Aegon's conquest, even though they had been successfully invaded before by Andals and the Rhyonar. The North is bigger, more populous, and has equally harsh conditions to foreigners, not to mention even more loyalty for House Stark.

Not necessarily true.

The North does have substantial defences in Moat Cailin and the Neck, but even if Robb were to withdraw from the Riverlands and fall back North, he'd still be vulnerable to attack from the sea as the Ironborn were only too happy to prove. Even if Manderly finally managed to get his fleet together, he'd have a hard time covering 1000s of miles of coastline. The North may have stood unconquered for millennia, but that was as 1 kingdom among seven. With a strong monarch sat on the Iron throne, I doubt the Northmen would have been able to repel all of the combined armies of Westeros for long.

This. I think that the North benefited from the fractured nature of Westeros. The Lannisters and Redwynes for example, may have had the ships but they also may have had bigger issues, or hell, they simply may not have had them at all at the time.

The North was severely weakened and facing the full force of the Iron Throne while half their land was under the boot of the Ironborn.On the other side, the side vulnerable to the Iron Throne, they only really had White Harbor and the Dreadfort. The Dreadfort is definitely the most dangerous spot to attack but if White Harbor was stormed and fell... there goes an important economic center. Seriously, Balon's death was the best thing that ever happened to them, imagine how bad it might have been if the Ironborn hadn't withdrawn most of their men.

[Stanmore]

Well, Dorne did successfully resisted Aegon's conquest, even though they had been successfully invaded before by Andals and the Rhyonar. The North is bigger, more populous, and has equally harsh conditions to foreigners, not to mention even more loyalty for House Stark.

Maybe he gave up on Dorne because it wasn't worth the hassle of conquering. It's Dry and Barren and lacking in population. With 6 other kingdoms to run, he probably didn't see any reason to get bogged down in a proverbial Afghanistan.

Either way, the threat of Targeyen conquest must have certainly seemed real enough to Torrhen Stark, or else why bend the knee? I suppose he might have been a coward, and unduly worried about the treat the Targs posed, but that seems rather out of character for a Stark, and surely his banner men would never have let their king surrender their sovereignty if they felt they had a good chance of defending their independence.

[Stanmore]

It occurs to me I haven't really answered the OP in either of my previous posts. Although I'm not sold on the idea of the North standing alone against the combined might of the other Kingdoms, If things had gone a differently I think Robb may have been able to carve out a new country for himself.

Back at the start of Clash of Kings, Robb was looking around for allies. Two options that seemed promising were Balon and the Ironborn, and Lysa and the Vale of Arrayn. Now we know neither of these alliances were really viable, but at the time Robb didn't. Lets say for the sake of argument Robb managed to win over both of them to his side. Suddenly his position improves mightily. Not only does he not have to worry about the Ironborn attacking his rear, but he also gains all the men of the Vale to fight at his side.

Now I don't think the Ironborn would have ever bent the knee to Robb, but assuming Lysa's hatred of the Lanisters had really been genuine, she very well might have. A kingdom made up of The North, The Riverlands and The Vale supported by Ironborn allies would be tough nut to crack. There's still the problem of defending the southern half of the Riverlands, but without fear of attack from the east or west, the red fork makes a rather defensible barrier. I could see Robb ceding the southern half of the Riverlands, baring Riverrun, as part of a peace deal with the Iron throne and offering the dispossessed lords land in the north to settle. That is if he didn't decided to pursue the Iron throne himself, with that sort of strength it would have been possible.

Of course all this is just “what if?”. By the time Robb went to war, Balon was already contemplating his revenge against the North, and Lysa was already wrapped around Littlefinger's... little finger. If Robb had known that though, I imagine he'd have seriously reconsidered going to war in the first place.

[danm_999]

Robb just had to keep disrupting Westeros' unity and let entropy and time do the rest.

Given time, the Iron Throne is unsustainable and a ridiculously impractical political situation. It can only be held when one faction has overwhelming military superiority (the Targaryens and their dragons). Without that advantage, nobody can ever assert their dominance over the entire continent for extended periods.

So because the playing field is so much more even in post-dragon Westeros, and the Iron Throne is too valuable a prize for anybody to ignore, it guarantees continental instability because Kings will demand power over regions they otherwise have no interest in or need for.

What that means in the long run is that the Iron Throne will fall apart. Kings will have either to continually waste their resources and power on crushing strategically irrelevant rebellions (try to hold everything and you hold nothing), or simply allow regions irrelevant to their power base remain autonomous (for example, if the Tyrells become the royal family they will eventually have to give up on trying to control the North).

[Gurkhal]

Robb just had to keep disrupting Westeros' unity and let entropy and time do the rest.

Dream on. As long as Robb is independent he'll be the Enemy that the rest of Westeros can direct their aggressions against and with the Riverlands in his domain Robb can't run and hide in the North.

Given time, the Iron Throne is unsustainable and a ridiculously impractical political situation. It can only be held when one faction has overwhelming military superiority (the Targaryens and their dragons). Without that advantage, nobody can ever assert their dominance over the entire continent for extended periods.

I disagree. With the construction of the Kingsroad etc. the communications for maintaining a larger political unite are in place and with ravens communications are also made easier. What is needed is only for sufficient military force to be direct from loyal regions to rebellious ones and the political situations is entirely possible to maintain. It will be harder without dragons but in no way impossible and the entire history of Westeros has been that smaller political unites are melted together to form new larger ones. There's never been a successful reversal of this in recorded Westerosi history, sole exception being the Valyrian kingdom if you count Essos into it.

So because the playing field is so much more even in post-dragon Westeros, and the Iron Throne is too valuable a prize for anybody to ignore, it guarantees continental instability because Kings will demand power over regions they otherwise have no interest in or need for.

In what way would that create instability? What we heard from time before the Iron Throne wars were as common as the turning of seasons and this a Westeros without an Iron Throne would be unstable more than anything else. Also people are used to having a king in King's Landing and don't generally see any reason to change it. So far only the Northmen and the Riverlords have shown any kind of interest in separatism, and for a very good reason I would say.

What that means in the long run is that the Iron Throne will fall apart. Kings will have either to continually waste their resources and power on crushing strategically irrelevant rebellions (try to hold everything and you hold nothing), or simply allow regions irrelevant to their power base remain autonomous (for example, if the Tyrells become the royal family they will eventually have to give up on trying to control the North).

I really remain sceptical about this scenario, mostly because with a Westeros united behind them they would have the resources and means of communications to hold on to the entire Westeros. And the North can kid themselves and pretend to be invincible in their backwoods but they would have little to put against a united Westeros, which could simply sail around Moat Cailin.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Not necessarily true.

100% true. Doran Martell specifically says Dorne is the less populous area of the Seven Kingdoms, therefore, the North's population is bigger.

Did Aegon try to invade Dorne? I was under the impression that Targaryan's no longer had dragons when the decided to annex Dorne.

He did, but he couldn't successfully keep it.

I really remain sceptical about this scenario, mostly because with a Westeros united behind them they would have the resources and means of communications to hold on to the entire Westeros. And the North can kid themselves and pretend to be invincible in their backwoods but they would have little to put against a united Westeros, which could simply sail around Moat Cailin.

Yes, do that, and try to occupy territory as big, if not bigger, than the rest of the realm, facing General Winter (even in the summer they have snows) and a population mostly extremely loyal to the enemy.

And again, Dorne managed to do that. And facing dragons.

[Greatjon_umber]

100% true. Doran Martell specifically says Dorne is the less populous area of the Seven Kingdoms, therefore, the North's population is bigger.

He did, but he couldn't successfully keep it.

Yes, do that, and try to occupy territory as big, if not bigger, than the rest of the realm, facing General Winter (even in the summer they have snows) and a population mostly extremely loyal to the enemy.

And again, Dorne managed to do that. And facing dragons.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better if I tried. The North is alot like the Dorne, it has great natural defenses against invasion, and harsh conditions that invaders would find difficult to deal with. And add to that the North is so large compared to the Dorne, I really can't imagine the North having been conquered by Aegon personally, dragons or not. Winterfell would have probably been melted down though

[danm_999]

Dream on. As long as Robb is independent he'll be the Enemy that the rest of Westeros can direct their aggressions against and with the Riverlands in his domain Robb can't run and hide in the North.

Unless the rest of Westeros also starts splitting away from the Iron Throne, in which case Robb's chances are much better. Hence letting entropy do it's work.

Robb might not live to see the day, but if enough kingdoms split away from the Iron Throne frequently enough, like they did in the War of the Five Kings, the Iron Throne will not be able to unify Westeros against single targets.

I disagree. With the construction of the Kingsroad etc. the communications for maintaining a larger political unite are in place and with ravens communications are also made easier. What is needed is only for sufficient military force to be direct from loyal regions to rebellious ones and the political situations is entirely possible to maintain. It will be harder without dragons but in no way impossible and the entire history of Westeros has been that smaller political unites are melted together to form new larger ones. There's never been a successful reversal of this in recorded Westerosi history, sole exception being the Valyrian kingdom if you count Essos into it.

No, infrastructure is much the same. Roads and ravens existed before Aegon's conquest, and you never had fewer than seven distinct entities. The logistical problem with a power in the South requiring enough manpower to hold the North, the Iron Islands, Dorne, the Vale, and anybody else who causes trouble is immense. That's why it never happened before Aegon, because it was too difficult without dragons.

Nor is the Kingsroad a silver bullet against political disunity, because it's actually a fairly limited road except for its main section from King's Landing to the Trident and Moat Caitlin, so it really doesn't help someone in say, the Crownlands, get anywhere but the Trident. Moat Cailin blocks it off from the North proper, and it doesn't touch Dorne, the Reach, the Westerlands or the Iron Islands.

There's a reason nobody united Westeros in the 12000 years before Aegon, because it can't be done without dragons.

In what way would that create instability?

Because Kings are forced to try and take things they have no logical or strategic need for. That's the problem with the Iron Throne; to be legitimised on it you need to control all Westeros, but the tools to do this (dragons) are long gone. There's no doctrine from the Iron Throne of "what can I hold, and what do I need", a realpolitick approach, there's only absolutism. A King must have everything.

For example, the Reach and the Stormlands don't need the North, and vice versa, because they have their own territorial integrity and self sustaining economies.

But if they vie for the Iron Throne, they're forced to try and covet places irrelevant to their power base, and places that if they try to capture, they actually over-extend themselves. They're forced to commit their forces to attack or defend these regions where diplomacy would serve better. They have to do this, because the philosophy of the Iron Throne is absolutist. A King has to control everything in Westeros, whether it's wise to or not, or they're no true King. The only exception to this rule is beyond the Wall, but that's for supernatural reasons, not political.

The Renly-Robb or Robb-Stannis alliance is a no-brainer in A Clash of Kings, but it doesn't happen because the ideology of the Iron Throne is so utterly unpragmatic (ie; I must have everything, I cannot allow any other King to exist, is effectively the answer both Renly and Stannis give Cat).

IWhat we heard from time before the Iron Throne wars were as common as the turning of seasons and this a Westeros without an Iron Throne would be unstable more than anything else.

Westeros was more peaceful before Aegon's Landing.

Why? Because the Iron Throne causes frequent continental wars, wars in which most regions in Westeros into something they have no stake in. Wars which have causes that start in the Reach, easily spread to the North, or vice versa, because of fealty obligations Great Houses owe to a single authority. This doesn't happen pre-Aegon.

Pre-Aegon, regional wars were incredibly common, but only one continental war (the Andal invasion) occured between humans in Westeros in the 12000 years before Aegon's Landing. Because before Aegon, a King in the Reach, or in Dorne, or in the Vale, could acknowledge, ignore or deal with other Kings, and their legitimacy was not destroyed by other Kings existing.

Post-conquest, if even one other King exists, it undermines the Iron Throne. Post-Aegon, we have more continental wars (Aegon's invasion itself, the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, the War of the Ninepenny Kings and Robert's Rebellion) in 300 years than we do in the previous 12000.

That's because of the Iron Throne. We also know the Iron Throne does not stop regional war in Westeros (the Faith Militant Uprising, Raymun Redbeard, the Defiance of Duskendale, wars in Dorne, Dagon Greyjoy, Balon's Rebellion).

Also people are used to having a king in King's Landing and don't generally see any reason to change it. So far only the Northmen and the Riverlords have shown any kind of interest in separatism, and for a very good reason I would say.

They might feel differently if they understood their history.

Let me give you an example; Septon Meribald and his village are conscripted to fight on the Stepstones in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, even though that conflict is utterly irrelevant to their liege lord.

The only reason they do it is because their liege lord is bound to the Iron Throne, which cannot accept someone else calling themselves King, even if they're not on the same continent! It's utter madness, and in the pre-Aegon age, you'd never, ever have the majority of Westerosi peasants conscripted to fight a continental conflict for a cause over in Essos. But you do under the Iron Throne.

I really remain sceptical about this scenario, mostly because with a Westeros united behind them they would have the resources and means of communications to hold on to the entire Westeros.

That's a cache 22; you need all of Westeros to hold all of Westeros. The best we've ever seen anybody do is Aegon, which lasted 300 years (an insignificant amount of time in terms of the scale of Westerosi history), and he did that with something that is no longer available in Westeros.

And the North can kid themselves and pretend to be invincible in their backwoods but they would have little to put against a united Westeros, which could simply sail around Moat Cailin.

That's not the big picture. Of course any one region is going to get absorbed by the other six. The point I'm making is, when that unity is eroded, nobody can keep six other kingdoms under their heels without dragons.

[Stanmore]

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better if I tried. The North is alot like the Dorne, it has great natural defenses against invasion, and harsh conditions that invaders would find difficult to deal with. And add to that the North is so large compared to the Dorne, I really can't imagine the North having been conquered by Aegon personally, dragons or not. Winterfell would have probably been melted down though

So why did Torrhen kneel? Was it just to protect his castle?

[Greatjon_umber]

So why did Torrhen kneel? Was it just to protect his castle?

I don't remember if this is from the book or not, I think it is. But Torrhen knelt because he saw the field of fire and wanted to spare his soldiers from another massacre like that. But if he had withdrawn to the North, and resisted Aegon and forced him to fight in Ned's back-yard, I imagine he'd have been able to resist much like the Dorne. He sacrified his Kingship for his people, quite a noble act.

[The Last Direwolf]

How d you know Robb never knew about the Wilding attack?

Because he would have gone North to deal with it and left the southern politics to itself. In the end, I do believe that Robb only ever marched south because he believed that his kingdom was relatively safe on it's own. But of course, when he discovered the ironborn invasion he marched back home to deal with it. Now, the ironborn have tiny numbers compared to the wildling host, so it'd be safe to assume that Robb would consider them at least an equal threat as the Greyjoys.

[Istakhr]

Dream on. As long as Robb is independent he'll be the Enemy that the rest of Westeros can direct their aggressions against and with the Riverlands in his domain Robb can't run and hide in the North.

I disagree. With the construction of the Kingsroad etc. the communications for maintaining a larger political unite are in place and with ravens communications are also made easier. What is needed is only for sufficient military force to be direct from loyal regions to rebellious ones and the political situations is entirely possible to maintain. It will be harder without dragons but in no way impossible and the entire history of Westeros has been that smaller political unites are melted together to form new larger ones. There's never been a successful reversal of this in recorded Westerosi history, sole exception being the Valyrian kingdom if you count Essos into it.

In what way would that create instability? What we heard from time before the Iron Throne wars were as common as the turning of seasons and this a Westeros without an Iron Throne would be unstable more than anything else. Also people are used to having a king in King's Landing and don't generally see any reason to change it. So far only the Northmen and the Riverlords have shown any kind of interest in separatism, and for a very good reason I would say.

I really remain sceptical about this scenario, mostly because with a Westeros united behind them they would have the resources and means of communications to hold on to the entire Westeros. And the North can kid themselves and pretend to be invincible in their backwoods but they would have little to put against a united Westeros, which could simply sail around Moat Cailin.

It really comes to the symbols of power. With Valyria gone, free cities which were Valyrian culturally (except Braavos) didn't remain united even though Braavos was and is a threat to their way of life.

Without dragons and with Targaryan's gone the last symbol of unity in seven kingdom's is KL and the Iron Trone. Note how Renly, Stannis and Lannisters all mainly wanted to control it. That;s why if KL is destroyed seven kingdom will fall apart.

[Victaerys]

So, he harrassed the Westerlands a lot and seized many of the Lannister's bannermens homes, making their army unstable. This may have been enough for the Lannisters to give the Starks freedom to appease the Northmen whilst they dealt with Stannis and Renly.

But when Tywin allied with the Tyrells it was pretty obvious that this would not be enough to force the crown to grant the North independence and make a peace. He must have planned something drastic to force them to free his people before heading back North to deal with the ironborn. So what was it? Take Casterly Rock? Take King's Landing? Both would be very difficult to achieve with the full force of the Tyrells and the Lannisters returning from defeating Stannis.

Simply retreating to the Neck and defending against any attacks that might come from the Iron Throne might have been the best idea, but without a mighty navy Joffrey would have inevitably landed troops in the North.

Well, the moment Tyrells joined the Lannisters, the war was lost and he knew it. He could have retreated North which is practically unconquerable using conventional means, but that would have meant losing Riverlands and any hope for revenge against the Lannisters.

I disagree that the Iron Throne could have done much against the North had Robb retired there with most of his forces intact. Seaborne invasion is hardly doable if you face a serious opposition (this is the Middle Ages, for Seven's sake, you can't possibly maintain a supply line like that) and the Neck/Moat Cailin is claimed to be for all intents and purposes impregnable.

So, most likely scenario: Robb and the Northerners retreat above the Neck, Lannister/Tyrell armies slowly grind the Riverlands' many castles and fortresses. Some Riverlords escape north to Robb, the rest bend the knee and accept Joffrey (or whoever sits one the throne at the moment) as their liege. The Iron Throne continues to consider the North a part of the 7 kingdoms, while the North considers itself independent. Since the South has its hands full with internal squabbles (the Vale and Dorne might continue resisting, shielded by mountains and deserts) and the North has to face the Wildlings and possibly also Ironborn raids and the Others, there isn't much fighting between the two. Eventually, the protracted de facto state becomes the de iure reality.

[Babeldygob]

He would've had to build a massive wall around the Riverlands to be sure. That place cannot be defended otherwise.

[Victaerys]

He would've had to build a massive wall around the Riverlands to be sure. That place cannot be defended otherwise.

Well, this is the Middle Ages, which means

. Battles happen only sporadically. What I mean to say is that if the Riverlands held on long enough, the coming winter would eventually drive off the invading armies. Of course, the Riverlands would be totally devastated and largely depopulated as a result. Also, the rightful Lord of Riverlands would probably have to stay behind to fan the flames of resistance. The question is whether Edmure was willing or capable to do that, even with Blackfish's help.

This is slightly off-topic, but I noticed people on this forum often think about warfare in ASOIAF in quite modern terms, which is IMO very misleading.

[Darth Rivers]

So, he harrassed the Westerlands a lot and seized many of the Lannister's bannermens homes, making their army unstable. This may have been enough for the Lannisters to give the Starks freedom to appease the Northmen whilst they dealt with Stannis and Renly.

But when Tywin allied with the Tyrells it was pretty obvious that this would not be enough to force the crown to grant the North independence and make a peace. He must have planned something drastic to force them to free his people before heading back North to deal with the ironborn. So what was it? Take Casterly Rock? Take King's Landing? Both would be very difficult to achieve with the full force of the Tyrells and the Lannisters returning from defeating Stannis.

Simply retreating to the Neck and defending against any attacks that might come from the Iron Throne might have been the best idea, but without a mighty navy Joffrey would have inevitably landed troops in the North. This would have started a great deal of fighting, and possibly could have prompted the Boltons into betraying them for a certain Lord Paramountship. So what exactly did Robb intend to do if he hadn't have been attacked by the ironborn? Was it ever mentioned? If not, what do you think he would have done?

He was marching back to retake the North, abandoning the Riverlands completely. Ergo, he had already lost. There was really nothing he could have done. He might not have realized this, being rather short sighted, but he had lost.

@Victaerys Indeed, many people think of warfare in modern terms. But the Riverlands were exposed one way or another. Without the large force of Northern levies around to dissuade the Lannister bannermen from besieging castles, the Riverlands would be put under siege. By which I mean, castles would get besieged by 1, 2 bannermen at a time, and soon they would fall. When Robb could still threaten with presence in the field, this wasn't possible. But now that all that's left is the depleted local levies, the only hope for the Riverlands would be that some castles would hold out long enough for the attackers to flee the winter. By which point they'd be forced to endure just that.

[lostinwesteros]

Because he would have gone North to deal with it and left the southern politics to itself. In the end, I do believe that Robb only ever marched south because he believed that his kingdom was relatively safe on it's own. But of course, when he discovered the ironborn invasion he marched back home to deal with it. Now, the ironborn have tiny numbers compared to the wildling host, so it'd be safe to assume that Robb would consider them at least an equal threat as the Greyjoys.

I'm not so sure that Robb was aware of the wildling threat to the North, but I could be wrong. What I do remember is that barring the Red Wedding, Robb had sent troops north, and I thought it was to retake the North/defeat the Iron Island forces. Hadn't he also instructed Roose Bolton to march on Winterfell to rout the Ironmen? At any rate, he really only started out to avenge his father and later I think his goal was simply to win independence for the North, as a sovereign kingdom.

As other poster have mentioned, this plan would seem to be thwarted by the fact that doing so would leave the Riverlands unprotected, and I don't think that's something he would do, given that his mother was a Tulley, as well as believing he was honor-bound not to leave them to the mercy of the Lannisters. Perhaps he would divide his troops and continue south to Casterly Rock, simply hoping that the Lannisters would at least release his sisters and grant the North sovereignity in exchange. But once Robb allowed himself to be swayed from his prime focus of gaining the upper hand/defeating the Lannisters, by Jeyne Westerling, strategically very foolish, I think it was the beginning of the end.

But, as I say, war strategy is definitely not my strongpoint.

[Darth Rivers]

Divide his troops and go for Casterly Rock? Seriously? That's the definition of "sucide" and "inducing thoughts of betrayal into the minds of one's men".

The only thing that Robb could have done by this point, was bend the knee. Or die, which he did in our case.