:0 I dislike the Starks :0

[INCBlackbird]

I think some people have a Sansa like naiveté when it comes to Robb's campaign in the Westerlands. Did we not forget that Jamie and Brienne came across an atrocity commitetd by Stark men in the Riverlands? Why do you think GRRM included that scene in the book? What tdo people really think paying Tywin back in kind for the devastation he caued really means?

:agree:

to make one thing clear, I don't think what Robb was on the same level as what tywin did. I am argueing the whitewashing I have seen like the whole: Robb punishes rapists... he doesn't, or: we know robb wouldn't do that because it's not in his character to do that.... what? I don't think Robb is a bad guy at all, ik now he means well, but most people in these books mean well and end up being responsible for some really bad things. and to deny that robb was equaly responsible is needless whitewashing of the character (really, he's a good person even if he is responsible for that stuff) and a deservice to the character in my opinion.

this is how i see robb : he's a young boy who is suddenly handed lots of power and has been hurt greatly. he's not equiped to deal with this power and he still has a rather simplistic view of the world: good vs evil. at the same time he constantly has to prove that he is a capable leader because he is this young and lots of his bannermen don't take him seriously, so he has to make some hard decisions. I think Robb was rather naive to what really happened in war. he got raised by Ned and I think through that he believed in the goodness of people and that most people would be honorable. I don't think that when he "paid the lannisters back in kind" he thought about the murder and rape that would occur. but he still ordered it and i think his men did whatever they wanted, which included raped and murder...

[Raving Stark the Mad]

based on what? Certainly nothing in the text.

There is nothing in the text to lead one to believe that Oxcross, Ashemark, or the Crag were burnt. So I'm relying on the fact that nowhere, at any time, is there any textual evidence that Robb Stark burns castles or villiages, in combination with his character, to come to the conclusion that he didn't burn Oxcross or Ashemark or the Crag.

[Frey Pie]

:agree:

to make one thing clear, I don't think what Robb was on the same level as what tywin did. I am argueing the whitewashing I have seen like the whole: Robb punishes rapists... he doesn't, or: we know robb wouldn't do that because it's not in his character to do that.... what? I don't think Robb is a bad guy at all, ik now he means well, but most people in these books mean well and end up being responsible for some really bad things. and to deny that robb was equaly responsible is needless whitewashing of the character (really, he's a good person even if he is responsible for that stuff) and a deservice to the character in my opinion.

this is how i see robb : he's a young boy who is suddenly handed lots of power and has been hurt greatly. he's not equiped to deal with this power and he still has a rather simplistic view of the world: good vs evil. at the same time he constantly has to prove that he is a capable leader because he is this young and lots of his bannermen don't take him seriously, so he has to make some hard decisions. I think Robb was rather naive to what really happened in war. he got raised by Ned and I think through that he believed in the goodness of people and that most people would be honorable. I don't think that when he "paid the lannisters back in kind" he thought about the murder and rape that would occur. but he still ordered it and i think his men did whatever they wanted, which included raped and murder...

Roose Bolton lived in fear of ned stark finding out about his rape. Iirc he mentions it. He knows that justice would be given to him, and I believe he mentions others for the First Night.

Robb if anything is Ned's son. Do you think he sanctions rape? I'm sure northmen did rape westerners, but it is in no way whitewashing to say that it wasnot near the level of tywins gang. And Robb's war is obviously not based on destruction to the civilian population. Of course there were many people hurt, many innocents and that is deplorable but let's get some perspective

And let's keep in mind darry, pinkmaiden, Harrenhal etc etc were all sacked. Sacked. Ashemark and the Crag were stormed. Stormed

[SeanF]

There is nothing in the text to lead one to believe that Oxcross, Ashemark, or the Crag were burnt. So I'm relying on the fact that nowhere, at any time, is there any textual evidence that Robb Stark burns castles or villiages, in combination with his character, to come to the conclusion that he didn't burn Oxcross or Ashemark or the Crag.

Burning enemy villages and crops is Standard Operating Practice, in this world. A humane commander permits the villagers to evacuate the village; a ruthless commander kills them. Destroying your enemy's economy is a tried and tested military tactic.

By way of comparison, most readers like Dany. But, she has no compunction about putting Meereen to the sack, when it's taken by storm.

[Frey Pie]

Burning enemy villages and crops is Standard Operating Practice, in this world. A humane commander permits the villagers to evacuate the village; a ruthless commander kills them. Destroying your enemy's economy is a tried and tested military tactic.

By way of comparison, most readers like Dany. But, she has no compunction about putting Meereen to the sack, when it's taken by storm.

Agreed. Is Robb ruthless? I wouldn't have put it up there with his main characteristics

[Chaircat Meow]

Agreed. Is Robb ruthless? I wouldn't have put it up there with his main characteristics

To someone who doesn't realize how war is waged in westeros he would look like that. In world though, no.

[Dragon in the North]

thelittledragonthatcould provided the perfect qoutes, there's nothing to discuss, my point was made clear.

I also provided quotes that proved Robb killed those men because they murdered children. He didn't even mention the fact that they betrayed him. When he sentenced them to death, he wanted them to remember how the children cried for mercy.

[INCBlackbird]

I also provided quotes that proved Robb killed those men because they murdered children. He didn't even mention the fact that they betrayed him. When he sentenced them to death, he wanted them to remember how the children cried for mercy.

those weren't rickard Karstark though, those were Karstark men, doing what their lord told him to. Karstark was the one who dared to disobey robb stark.

[Dragon in the North]

those weren't rickard Karstark though, those were Karstark men, doing what their lord told him to. Karstark was the one who dared to disobey robb stark.

Exactly, so he had those men executed for killing children.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Burning enemy villages and crops is Standard Operating Practice, in this world. A humane commander permits the villagers to evacuate the village; a ruthless commander kills them. Destroying your enemy's economy is a tried and tested military tactic.

By way of comparison, most readers like Dany. But, she has no compunction about putting Meereen to the sack, when it's taken by storm.

Crops, yes. Taking property, yes. Burning castles and homes? Seems to be a matter of preference.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "Standard Operating Practice" in Westeros. It's not like they have a book. There is custom and precedent. To paraphrase a famous pirate captain, "they're really more like guidelines". Nothing is forcing a commander to burn down a village, burn the crops, and steal all the cattle. They make a definitive choice of "this is what I'm going to do/allow".

Dany didn't put Mereen to the sack. The starving masses and freed slaves started to sack Mereen, and Dany put a stop to it. Huge difference.

[INCBlackbird]

Exactly, so he had those men executed for killing children.

yep and he executed Karstark because he disobeyed him and couldn't have any other bannerman thinking they could walk all over Robb "the boy"

[Dragon in the North]

yep and he executed Karstark because he disobeyed him and couldn't have any other bannerman thinking they could walk all over Robb "the boy"

The argument was whether Robb punished any of his men for committing atrocities, such as rape or murder. You just agreed that he did exactly that.

[Frey Pie]

yep and he executed Karstark because he disobeyed him and couldn't have any other bannerman thinking they could walk all over Robb "the boy"

I don't see how you can see a difference in the two. When Robb executes Karstark he mentions his sullied honour. When Robb executes Karstarks men it is for the deplorable death of innocents.

Is it not clear that Robb is pissed off about both? There were multiple reasons for the executions. How you can just keep pushing the honour thing I don't know, in the face of clear evidence.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

I think some people have a Sansa like naiveté when it comes to Robb's campaign in the Westerlands. Did we not forget that Jamie and Brienne came across an atrocity commitetd by Stark men in the Riverlands? Why do you think GRRM included that scene in the book? What tdo people really think paying Tywin back in kind for the devastation he caued really means?

No one is being naive about Robb's campaign. Everyone admitted deaths of innocent people can be connected to some Robb's decisions. But if someone said Dany's campaigns are just as brutal as Tywin's wouldn't you be calling bullshit on that too?

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

A commander can't stop his own men from committing atrocities, even if he orders them not to. Being very realistic, we know it's the true.

But then, such commander has two options: ignore the subject or punish it. We know many men actually punish their men if they have misbehaved: Stannis, Ned, Tarly (yes, Tarly!), Hasty and I'm sure there are some others. This tells us that even for their medieval background and way of thinking, they do have some standards and notions of proper conduct during war.

Yet, men like Tywin not only don't punish it and rather award them but actually encourage them to kill, rape and cause terror. That's a big big big huge difference.

[Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark]

So NED is "as stupid as bumpkin" for being too damn honorable, and Robb Stark is too naive for killing Rickard Karstark. That's the bullshit double faced argument some use to bash both STARKS.

[Fjordgazer]

A commander can't stop his own men from committing atrocities, even if he orders them not to. Being very realistic, we know it's the true.

But then, such commander has two options: ignore the subject or punish it. We know many men actually punish their men if they have misbehaved: Stannis, Ned, Tarly (yes, Tarly!), Hasty and I'm sure there are some others. This tells us that even for their medieval background and way of thinking, they do have some standards and notions of proper conduct during war.

Yet, men like Tywin not only don't punish it and rather award them but actually encourage them to kill, rape and cause terror. That's a big big big huge difference.

Game, set and match. To me anyway.

[RoamingRonin]

Game, set and match. To me anyway.

Are you new here or something? It's not over til it's locked.

[Fjordgazer]

LOL! semi-sullied! but no I'm not mixing it up with the show, I don't use instances from the show in a book discussion, it was in one of the chapters i recently read from her. in ADWD:

“We have no captives but this wineseller?”

“None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon.”

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon’s mercy. “Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply.”

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.”

“Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly.

A woman can be tortured with the same methods as a man. Even as fed up as she was in that time, she wouldn't outright ask for the rape of any woman; that was your implication.