King17

In his defense I doubt cersei sent him a letter saying she was going to send men to kill the lord commander.

True.

I mean it kinda is as the realms of men historically hasn't included the wildlings and the wildlings are considered a threat to the realms of men anyway I won't comment any further as I don't want to hijack the thread.

I am using historical precedence the watch has fought both others and wildlings the wildlings are an enemy of the watch and Jon let them through.

I disagree letting the wildlings through was oath breaking and Jon Shouldn't have done it.

I can't really help marsh now he should've assassinated jon before he let the wildlings through the wall.

I suspect it wasn't really elopement for the sake of love but I don't think she was kidnapped either I think the truth will be rather complex.

In theory it might've worked although I think it would've required him to abandon the riverlands.

Why declare for stannis? He hadn't declared himself a king yet and They didn't know about the incest at the time. Also it wouldn't have divided the stormlords they had no reason to be loyal to robb whatsoever.

Robb really should've taken the frey advice and basically sat out the war and joined or opposed the Victor depending on who it was.

Robb in hopes one day bran will be King.

Baelor and Bloodraven had very different ideas on how to treat rebels 1 baelor believed "that clemency was best when dealing with an honorable foe. If a defeated man believes he will be pardoned, he may lay down his sword and bend the knee. Elsewise he will fight on to the death, and slay more loyal men and innocents". 2 Bloodraven believed "That when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." who was right and why?