Robbs strange understanding of honor

[Frey Pie]

If fealty is automatic/assumed, it does not need to be sworn. The difference between lying and perjury is the oath. It's the same with rejecting and rebelling against an authority.

And again, you are talking about completely subjective criteria as though it's objective.

When have I said fealty is assumed?

And what I am merely saying is that from a northerner and riverlands perspective Joffrey is no fit ruler for them. Yes it is subjective and yes Joffrey and many others could have another point of view. None of these reasons for rebellion are set in stone

[James Arryn]

When have I said fealty is assumed?

And what I am merely saying is that from a northerner and riverlands perspective Joffrey is no fit ruler for them. Yes it is subjective and yes Joffrey and many others could have another point of view. None of these reasons for rebellion are set in stone

When you say it is 'owed'.

Past behviour may influence Reed's choice, but it's a choice. If it's an obligation, then it's assumed.

Anyways, I argue this position periodically because I believe it's correct, but I invariably give up when no one seems persuaded. That plus Niners ( am scared) and I will give up the ghost sooner or later, until the next time. :)

[juanml82]

Right, that's the 'pushing back' thing I was describing. That was feudal balance before Magna Carta. I think you're mixing up the concepts of universal law and non-absolutism. The reason feudalism worked for so long WAS because of the inherent practical limits on Royal power, not because of legal or moral constraints. If you cost your barons more than you benefit them, and you do it long enough, bad enough, or to the wrong people, you get rebellion. And feudal states are almost perpetually in rebellion somewhere.

Jon Arryn didn't rebel over court procedures, but even if he had, that's not a defining legal line, it's one man's limit on cost/gain.

A set of rules as defined, where? And, again, this is not why/when Arryn rebelled.

Silence?

It doesn't 'turn worse'. Rebellion is like marriage; you either are or aren't. He wasn't until the demands for Robert/Ned's heads, which means (according to any convention on unspoken law) it was approved. Silence equals consent.

Who is, then? You're offering a body without a skeleton, and in practice someone will fill that space if it's not otherwise occupied. We see constant examples of feudal authority; it works until it doesn't. Tywin didn't apply a different law to the Reynes and Tarbecks than his father had, he just applied it more effectively.

The world book mentions that Jaherys the Conciliator unified the legal code, so there are written laws in Westeros, even if some are ambiguous and open to interpretation by force of arms.

When Dunk is told he would be considered guilty if he can't find six other champions, that's a law stating how Trials of Seven work. When Cersei tells Margery only a Whitecloak can champion her, that's a law (likely made up, but a law nonetheless).

And yes, burning someone to death instead of allowing him a fair trial and ordering the execution of a Lord without trial are "court procedures". Keep in mind Aerys killed Rickard and asked for Ned and Robert's head by the same time, so it's not like Jon first received a raven notifying him of Rickard's death, he thought "not bad enough" and weeks later he was asked to kill his wards.

Westeros isn't medieval Earth.

[kieran wilkie]

Tbh though in all fairness to him, if i had a sister as annoying as Sansa i wouldn't be in a rush to get her back either...and a kingdom (granted its the north so not a particularly great kingdom) seems a pretty sweet deal to fight for.

As for the whole grief thing, meh, different people handle things differently, you can't say he grieved wrong because that isn't how i/most people grieve, he some how found comfort from banging a western gal

though i do agree that from his position he should have thought more about the honour of having enough men to finish what he started and end the bloodshed as quick as possible for the smallfolks sake in comparison to the honour of just one girl

[Avlonnic]

Past behviour may influence Reed's choice, but it's a choice. If it's an obligation, then it's assumed.

Anyways, I argue this position periodically because I believe it's correct, but I invariably give up when no one seems persuaded. That plus Niners ( am scared) and I will give up the ghost sooner or later, until the next time. :)

I'm persuaded. Well done.

[Vikingkingq]

Robb Stark, the Young Wolf, the King in the North and the King of the Trident is regarded by many readers as a great guy who lost everything because he was too honorable and ruined his last chaces to win by doing the honorable thing, regardless of the fact that it would be to his own disadvantage. But was he?

-He refused to declare for Renly because he was the younger brother, but then he also rejected Stannis and accepted the title of the King in the North which left him without any big allies. Was his initial plan not to free his father and his sisters and not becoming a king?

-He decided to break the marriage pact with the Freys because he felt he needed to protect Jeyne Westerlings honor. He did not want to leave a "dishonored" girl behind, how honorable. But then why did he have sex with her and "sully her honor" in the firtst place?(Even after a following wedding, her reputation is still damaged in the eyes of the Westerosi society because she had sex before being married.) Yes, the poor young king grieved for his brothers, but why did he have to have sex with a girl in the castle he just conquered from her family and "dishonor" her according to the social norms he is well aware of? This is not exactly an honorable way to grieve. People manage to grieve without being consoled with sex.

-He refused to exchange Jaime for his sisters because he thought that his bannermen would not like to trade the Kingslayer, a valuable hostage who was a top fighter, for two girls who happened to be his sisters(they thought Arya was also in Kings Landing). Yes, he made the exchange a part of his demands for a peace agreement, but only if the Lannisters also accept his other demand which seemed to have become the most important point for him: the acceptance of his independent rule over two regions of the seven kingdoms and his new titles as King in the North and King of the Trident. The fact that he had Jaime did not stop the Lannisters from fighting against him, it just gave them a reason to keep Sansa alive. So why was it for Robb whom most of his followers adored so impossible to trade Jaime for his sisters? He gave as a reason that his bannermen would argue that Jaime could fight and lead armies, but other subordinates of Tywin did that too. Yes, Jaime was an excellent fighter, but he was just one fighter. Robbs inability to control his sexual desire cost his side thousands of fighters and the not that unimportant passage through the Twins, but that was supposed to be okay for his bannermen, but he thought it would not at all be okay for them if he exchanged one Lannister for two Starks. Again, did he not initially go to war to free his family members?

I think I should add: His bannermen never said that he should not exchange two girls for the Kingslayer, that was just what Robb thought they might think. What Catelyn did was not an arranged hostage exchange, it was freeing a prisoner in the hope that his relatives would send her daughters back, but she made no official agreement with them. So his bannermens reaction to Catelyns hope against all odds is no indication of what they would think about an exchange. Robb never even suggested it.

So, Robb went to war to free his family members, his father Ned and his sisters Sansa and Arya, but it seems that after Neds death and his coronation, keeping his crown and the independent reign over the North and the Riverlands have become more important to him than getting his sisters back and out of the clutches of their enemies.

What is your opinion?

1. Robb hadn't made his mind up about Stannis when he himself was acclaimed. But notably A. Robb didn't know Joffrey was illegitimate, and B. Stannis had not yet declared himself a candidate.

2. Jeyne was a participant in the event too. She offered comfort, he accepted, while not in his right mind.

3. I think you misread the attitudes of his bannermen - their feelings are quite strong about the matter, as seen in Catelyn IX of AGOT and Catelyn I of ACOK. Rickard Karstark for one was not going to accept it no matter what.

[juanml82]

1. Robb hadn't made his mind up about Stannis when he himself was acclaimed. But notably A. Robb didn't know Joffrey was illegitimate, and B. Stannis had not yet declared himself a candidate.

2. Jeyne was a participant in the event too. She offered comfort, he accepted, while not in his right mind.

3. I think you misread the attitudes of his bannermen - their feelings are quite strong about the matter, as seen in Catelyn IX of AGOT and Catelyn I of ACOK. Rickard Karstark for one was not going to accept it no matter what.

3) "Lord Karstark, the Kingslayer killed two of your sons, let's kill two of his"

Robb would never approve the murder of Tommen though, but I'd they were to win, they'll have other Lannisters to pick up

[Colonel Green]

-He decided to break the marriage pact with the Freys because he felt he needed to protect Jeyne Westerlings honor. He did not want to leave a "dishonored" girl behind, how honorable. But then why did he have sex with her and "sully her honor" in the firtst place?(Even after a following wedding, her reputation is still damaged in the eyes of the Westerosi society because she had sex before being married.) Yes, the poor young king grieved for his brothers, but why did he have to have sex with a girl in the castle he just conquered from her family and "dishonor" her according to the social norms he is well aware of? This is not exactly an honorable way to grieve. People manage to grieve without being consoled with sex.

This is a really silly criticism. Robb made a mistake in his grief; he acknowledged that. There's a difference between a momentary failing and a deliberate and sober course of action. Sleeping with Jeyne once is the former; leaving her "sullied" and going off to marry someone else is the latter. You're weighing the initial breach of honour with the attempt tor remedy it, as if the former was something he somehow thought was honourable to begin with, when he explicitly says it wasn't.

As to the Jaime vs. Sansa/Arya trade, once the new political situation developed in response to Ned's death, the trade was simply not an option. Nobody would trade Jaime for two girls who aren't of any particular strategic value (in the current scenario).

[Vikingkingq]

3) "Lord Karstark, the Kingslayer killed two of your sons, let's kill two of his"

Robb would never approve the murder of Tommen though, but I'd they were to win, they'll have other Lannisters to pick up

That probably would have sated Karstark somewhat - although Stafford didn't do the trick - but the problem is that Robb wasn't in a position to offer the death of Joffrey and Tommen. Post-Blackwater, Robb's in a really bad spot (although how much so I think is sometimes exaggerated, the situation would have looked a lot different if Robb could have held out for two more months), and Jaime's the only chip he's got to get a peace deal.

The problem is that Catelyn gave him away covertly (and thus deniably) rather than actually negotiating a hostage exchange that included a truce between the two sides. Even if Jaime had gotten back to KL safely and Sansa and Arya had been handed over, there was never any agreement that the Lannisters were going to stop fighting - and with the Tyrells on their side, they weren't going to stop until Robb was permanently dealt with.

[Frey Pie]

When you say it is 'owed'.

Past behviour may influence Reed's choice, but it's a choice. If it's an obligation, then it's assumed.

Anyways, I argue this position periodically because I believe it's correct, but I invariably give up when no one seems persuaded. That plus Niners ( am scared) and I will give up the ghost sooner or later, until the next time. :)

Ah right then I used the wrong terminology so fair enough. I agree it is a choice, but would also say many kings would assume fealty and take it as a given. I think Joffrey would presume he could do what he likes and still deserve and get the undying loyalty of his bannermen when he needs it

That said there is a code of laws in Westeros, and I'm not sure the king is above all of them. Depends on the King and circumstance I suppose

[Lee-Sensei]

Stannis had no proof that he was the rightful King and it's incredibly suspicious that he only waited to out Cersei's kids when Robert was already dead.

The Frey marriage was a gray area, but he undeniably did a nice thing for Jeyne when he married her.

[Ser RoddyRuinuous]

I think that if Robb knew that Ned was inclined towards Stannis due to reasons, he might have followed suit. The fact that Ned was unable to communicate what he knew by the time of his death to any of his family is a major cause for Stark woes that followed. Had Ned somehow been able to get word out, events might have followed very differently.

It's one of the great tragedies of Ned's death that he goes out knowing that everything is about to turn complete shit on everybody, and he knows why.

[Maid So Fair]

1, His bannermen wanted him to become a King, it wasn't his idea. There's also nothing dishonourable about accepting, especially since Robb has a much better claim to being the King of the North than basically any other claimant has to the IT.

2, He admitted it was a mistake, but the fact he tries to make up for it straight away (albeit in a pretty idiotic way) shows that this was an exception rather than the rule. It's also the kind of a mistake that is very human and would have been easily made by many others in the same circumstances.

3, Unlike the Lannisters, he was at least TRYING to negotiate and when you try to do that everything is on the table. But exchanging Jaime for Sansa would have been stupid - as cruel as it is, she simply is not worth as much as Jaime since he is a general able to lead armies against the Starks. Even if he personally wanted to do it, his bannermen would not accept that, and that's not just an assumption. Exchanging hostages without first securing peace on acceptable terms would have been suicidal.

[John Doe]

3, Unlike the Lannisters, he was at least TRYING to negotiate

Wrong. The Lannisters offered an exchange which Robb declined.

[Maid So Fair]

Wrong. The Lannisters offered an exchange which Robb declined.

He's the one to send Cleos to KL with terms. Tyrion then decides that this is a great opportunity to organise an escape attempt.

[King of Vaes Tolorro]

1. As Greatjon said, the North married the Dragons, but the Dragons are dead.

2. Choosing another's honor over your own is very admirale,one might even say honorable

3. Jaime is a commander, a Kings guard. He is a legendary fighter. Sansa and Arya are technically worthless than him during war. Also they are safer as while Jaime is prisoner, no harm will come to them.

[juanml82]

1. As Greatjon said, the North married the Dragons, but the Dragons are dead.

2. Choosing another's honor over your own is very admirale,one might even say honorable

3. Jaime is a commander, a Kings guard. He is a legendary fighter. Sansa and Arya are technically worthless than him during war. Also they are safer as while Jaime is prisoner, no harm will come to them.

2) Completely disagree. They are fighting a war. Loosing 4,000 men (or whatever amount remained) at a critical point because of a girl is such a dereliction it could be judged as treason if the offender wasn't the king.

3) Jaime is a poor commander and a legendary fighter. He's one man. As far as Robb knows, Sansa can secure him an alliance with thousands of men. No, I would say Sansa is worth more than Jaime, not the other way around.

[John Doe]

He's the one to send Cleos to KL with terms. Tyrion then decides that this is a great opportunity to organise an escape attempt.

Yet they were also negotiating. Robb declined the exchange.

[John Doe]

2) Completely disagree. They are fighting a war. Loosing 4,000 men (or whatever amount remained) at a critical point because of a girl is such a dereliction it could be judged as treason if the offender wasn't the king.

3) Jaime is a poor commander and a legendary fighter. He's one man. As far as Robb knows, Sansa can secure him an alliance with thousands of men. No, I would say Sansa is worth more than Jaime, not the other way around.

:agree:

[Maid So Fair]

Yet they were also negotiating. Robb declined the exchange.

That doesn't change the fact he initiated the proceedings. When haggling, you don't name your lowest price first so a little back and forth is expected. Why should he be expected to just accept any terms, however unreasonable? Jaime is worth more than Sansa. Also consider that besides sending some terms back Tyrion had shown the Lannisters' regard for negotiation when he tried to spring Jaime out. Robb at least tried.