:0 I dislike the Starks :0

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Karstark murdered prisoners under his protection. That is his issue.

So, the guy who doesn't like having prisoners killed while under his protection, is okay with his soldiers raping and murdering children who are NOT prisoners?

I remember that he "paid the lannisters back" for what they did in the riverlands, which I understood as doing the same thing the lannisters did as payback (which includes the murder and rape of innocent smallfolk) and maybe I'm mis remembering but I thought robb ordered that? (probably being a bit naive and not realising that rape and murder of innocents would occur and seeing it more in a childlike version of good guys vs badguys if you know what I mean?)

the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they’d inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere

I don't think there is anything in there about killing smallfolk.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

So, the guy who doesn't like having prisoners killed while under his protection, is okay with his soldiers raping and murdering children who are NOT prisoners?

Clearly. As Robb mentioned, it damaged his honor having his prisoners killed.

Rickard Karstark killed more than a Frey and a Lannister. He killed my honor.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer. His honor is what he is most upset about.

I don't think there is anything in there about killing smallfolk.

What do you think that happened to the shepherds who wanted to keep their cattle in the Westerlands. Do you think they were politely given I.O.U.'s and told to get in touch after the War?

Do you think there were no smallfolk casualties in the village of Oxcross?

[Stark Vader]

I Find it very hard to be all that objective about Robb, or spend to much time dwelling on him.

He promised it be one of the most deserving men to sit his arse on a lords chair and he's dead. Every tine you like anything about a Stark you just know their noble ideals will land you with a big kick in the balls later when they are crushed like a bug.

I can see why so many show folks love Dany, she's a nice change from the depressing reality of seeing Starks get themselves killed and Lannisters just doing a lannister things.

[Maid So Fair]

Why are people so unwilling to distinguish between a deliberate scorched-earth campaign of rape, pillage and destruction and these happening as a collateral damage in a war? Consider what we know of the Westerlands campaign - the main target is an army and some castles, perfectly legitimate strategic objectives. Tywin's main target are fields and villages.

[Mikkel]

Why are people so unwilling to distinguish between a deliberate scorched-earth campaign of rape, pillage and destruction and these happening as a collateral damage in a war? Consider what we know of the Westerlands campaign - the main target is an army and some castles, perfectly legitimate strategic objectives. Tywin's main target are fields and villages.

Because distinguishing between the two means that it's a lot harder to explain their fawning over Tywin and his lovable friends. Much easier if they can go "Robb did it too!" kindergarten-style, even if the two aren't really comparable.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Why are people so unwilling to distinguish between a deliberate scorched-earth campaign of rape, pillage and destruction and these happening as a collateral damage in a war? Consider what we know of the Westerlands campaign - the main target is an army and some castles, perfectly legitimate strategic objectives. Tywin's main target are fields and villages.

Because that is what we are told in the books.

Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands

[Mikkel]

Because that is what we are told in the books.

We are also told specifically what this entails:

Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn’s Deep, and the Pendric Hills.

This isn't the same as what Tywin is doing, not by a long shot. Nowhere is there anything about unleashing madmen and psychopaths on the populace, nowhere is there anything about using serial murderers and rapists like The Mountain. No, Robb is not a cuddly teddy-bear serving milk and cookies to the Westerlands, but neither is he like Tywin and his wardogs.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

We are also told specifically what this entails:

Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn’s Deep, and the Pendric Hills.

This isn't the same as what Tywin is doing, not by a long shot. Nowhere is there anything about unleashing madmen and psychopaths on the populace, nowhere is there anything about using serial murderers and rapists like The Mountain. No, Robb is not a cuddly teddy-bear serving milk and cookies to the Westerlands, but neither is he like Tywin and his wardogs.

The phrase "in kind" means In the same manner or with an equivalent. This is what we are told is happening in the Westerlands. It is pretty clear that Robb is trying to emulate what the Lannisters did.

Describing prominent locations is easier than saying some random nameless field was burnt down or some insignificant village was destroyed.

Now we don't have a Brienne or Arya walking around the Westerlands witnessing the devastation nor do we have a Cat equivalent in the Westerlands capital getting told up to date reports.

Our main account of Robbs actions in the West tell us that he is trying to do exactly what Robb did.

[Mikkel]

The phrase "in kind" means In the same manner or with an equivalent. This is what we are told is happening in the Westerlands. It is pretty clear that Robb is trying to emulate what the Lannisters did.

Describing prominent locations is easier than saying some random nameless field was burnt down or some insignificant village was destroyed.

Now we don't have a Brienne or Arya walking around the Westerlands witnessing the devastation nor do we have a Cat equivalent in the Westerlands capital getting told up to date reports.

Our main account of Robbs actions in the West tell us that he is trying to do exactly what Robb did.

That's your interpretation, and if I understand you right you base this entirely on the phrasing of "in kind", taking it to mean "in every way identical to". IMO "in kind" merely means Robb is going after their resources, their food and such - not that he's waging an all-out terror-campaign a'la Tywin. To determine which interpretation is the likelier, we need to look beyond the words we're given, and everything else we know about Robb, and the people he grew up with who would have shaped him, says that acting like Tywin would be very out of character for him. So I don't think it's reasonable at all to assume that's what he's doing, at least not based solely on this one sentence.

Even if we go by the milder (and IMO much more likely) interpretation, it's still not a "nice" thing to do, military commanders on a war footing rarely stick to doing just nice things, and it will undoubtedly cause collateral damage and deaths among the civilians, directly and indirectly, but there's still a significant difference between collateral damage (Robb and company), and then outright targeting the civilian populace as a tactic meant to inspire fear (Tywin/the Mountain/Brave Companions etc etc).

[thelittledragonthatcould]

That's your interpretation,

It is not, it is what the phrase means and clearly what Rymund is trying to convey.

He even goes on to say that Robb cut out Staffords heart and fed it to his Direwolf.

[Frey Pie]

Clearly. As Robb mentioned, it damaged his honor having his prisoners killed.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer. His honor is what he is most upset about.

No it's a mixture of things. He talk about his honour which itself is an assault on the vassals king. He also talk about the death of the children and horror of it. Why can it not be not?

So we have the Tywin cronies saying he's the man and robb was just as bad so we're all fanwanking if we don't agree...

The war in the Westerlands is not comparable to the level of destruction in the riverlands. This is made pretty clear. It's also pretty clear that the riverlands campaign is pretty unique on the scale of the destruction caused

[Frey Pie]

It is not, it is what the phrase means and clearly what Rymund is trying to convey.

He even goes on to say that Robb cut out Staffords heart and fed it to his Direwolf.

Ha ya and the Frey is being completely literal here. As literal as Rhaegar frey and robb turning into a werewolf.

Funny that my fairness and equality is the one questioned...

[kimim]

Why are people so unwilling to distinguish between a deliberate scorched-earth campaign of rape, pillage and destruction and these happening as a collateral damage in a war? Consider what we know of the Westerlands campaign - the main target is an army and some castles, perfectly legitimate strategic objectives. Tywin's main target are fields and villages.

I'm not sure why people insist on paralleling what Robb does with what Tywin does. As you say, Tywin's main target was the populace. There's nothing "collateral" about what he does to civilians; terrorizing, torturing, killing, raping them is the entire point of Gregor's campaign. btw I love Tywin. He's a competent, great, complicated VILLAIN. Robb I'm not that crazy about, but he's no villain.

[Mikkel]

It is not, it is what the phrase means and clearly what Rymund is trying to convey.

In broad terms, that's what it means. IE, Robb is going after Tywin's hinterlands, his powerbase, the same as Tywin did to the Riverlands. It doesn't mean that Robb's campaign is a one-to-one mirror of Tywin's, nor that his methods to achieve the same overall goals are identical. Concluding as much on the basis of one phrase, when it goes against everything else we know or can surmise about Robb seems somewhat disingenuous.

He even goes on to say that Robb cut out Staffords heart and fed it to his Direwolf.

Yeah, and it's also said that Robb and his commanders transform into wolves. Doesn't mean it is true, though.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Look at the whole sentence, not the piece that supports your theory.

the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they’d inflicted on the riverlands

Note "for the devastation". He used the word "devastation", not "murder, or rape".

As to cutting out a heart and feeding it to Greywind:

“I would not believe such tales,” Catelyn said sharply. “My son is no savage.”

[thelittledragonthatcould]

No it's a mixture of things. He talk about his honour which itself is an assault on the vassals king. He also talk about the death of the children and horror of it. Why can it not be not?

Why ignore what Robb Stark actually says?

Rickard Karstark killed more than a Frey and a Lannister. He killed my honor.

Robb Stark directly tells us what Rickard did wrong. MORE than killing two kids he killed his HONOR.

Robb is clear, bend his words all you want.

In broad terms, that's what it means. IE, Robb is going after Tywin's hinterlands, his powerbase, the same as Tywin did to the Riverlands. It doesn't mean that Robb's campaign is a one-to-one mirror of Tywin's, nor that his methods to achieve the same overall goals are identical. Concluding as much on the basis of one phrase, when it goes against everything else we know or can surmise about Robb seems somewhat disingenuous.

I never said he did the exact same, but that he went there intending to. He was let down by Theon as he was supposed to join up with the Ironborn.

Yeah, and it's also said that Robb and his commanders transform into wolves. Doesn't mean it is true, though.

By the same token, it does not mean all the atrocities said to have been committed by the Westerland soldiers is true. I don't see you give them the same benefit of the doubt. One rule for a Stark and another for a Lannister it seems.

[Mikkel]

By the same token, it does not mean all the atrocities said to have been committed by the Westerland soldiers is true. I don't see you give them the same benefit of the doubt. One rule for a Stark and another for a Lannister it seems.

Yeah, because it can't possibly be the delightful description we get from the Mountain's own men on how they raped their way across the Riverlands, right? It must be anti-Lannister bias.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Robb Stark directly tells us what Rickard did wrong. MORE than killing two kids he killed his HONOR.

You're cherry picking a tree to look at and totally ignoring the forest. Look at EVERYTHING that Robb Stark says. Look at the character. Ask yourself "why did killing two prisoners kill Robb Stark's honor"? Would raping and murdering smallfolk through the Westerlands be "honorable"?

By the same token, it does not mean all the atrocities said to have been committed by the Westerland soldiers is true. I don't see you give them the same benefit of the doubt. One rule for a Stark and another for a Lannister it seems.

That's because I've met Tywin Lannister, Amory Lorch, Gregor Clegane, and several other fine specimens of Lannister chivalry. I've also met Robb Stark and his father. One justifies killing children, the others do not. One keeps rapists around because they're "useful", and another executes his own bannerman for killing prisoners and besmirching his honor.

So yeah. Robb Stark gets the benefit of my doubt, and Tywin and his band of sickos does not.

[Frey Pie]

Why ignore what Robb Stark actually says?

Robb Stark directly tells us what Rickard did wrong. MORE than killing two kids he killed his HONOR.

Robb is clear, bend his words all you want.

I never said he did the exact same, but that he went there intending to. He was let down by Theon as he was supposed to join up with the Ironborn.

By the same token, it does not mean all the atrocities said to have been committed by the Westerland soldiers is true. I don't see you give them the same benefit of the doubt. One rule for a Stark and another for a Lannister it seems.

I'm not ignoring what Robb says I take it into account. I also don't ignore what else he says that doesn't support your hate. Robb does say that and he also does talk about the dead children in a manor which makes it obvious he knows it was awful. You are the one who is ignoring everything for one sentence to prove your point. Yes he did attack Robb's honour personally and yes this does piss robb off but so does the deaths. Your trying to paint robb as a honour maniac when he's not

And yes robb was going to meet up with the Greyjoys and have an orgy of rape with Balon because that is so robb...

No it does mean everything we've heard about their atrocities are true. Why? Because we have first hand evidence from

Brienne

Arya

Jaime

Cat

Ned

This is evidence enough

[Chaircat Meow]

I don't think Robb's men behaved as badly as Tywin's. It is very much Ned Stark's philosophy that you do not consort with, or wink at, evil men. So Ned would not tolerate the Gregors/Crasters of the world serving him. He would take ice to go and deal with them. However, I do not think that means Starks and Tullys are above torching villages and putting the inhabitants to the sword. We know Hoster Tully did that in Robert's Rebellion and there's no sign Ned despises Hoster.