Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Graydon Hicks

what robb could have done better?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, snow is the man said:

To be fair the boltons are the only house that pulled that crap out of all the northen houses.

 

That does not seem to be true. GRRM explains why theres are more Lannisters than Starks in the current series

GRRM:It's also true that there are many more Lannisters. It also has to be taken into consideration that the North has had frequent revolts and other such problems, that there have been rebel lords in the past, that they've dealt with the Kings-beyond-the-Wall, and the revolt of Skagos, and everything else that's occured in the last hundred years. 

We only have to look at the Greatjon testing the waters with Robb in AGOT, or his uncles refusing to help Winterfell along with a number of other Houses such as the Dustins and Ryswells. 

 

15 hours ago, snow is the man said:

 

And nobody likes the boltons.

Some do, some don't. Same as most Houses. 

15 hours ago, snow is the man said:

 

I think the northeners are more loyal to the starks then the houses in the south are loyal to whoever is in charge of them. 

Which is not backed up by the books. Tell me, which Overlord in the series was literally stabbed in the back by his own vassal?

I'm willing to give the Northern vassals the beneifit of the doubt and say they are the same as their Southern counterparts when it comes to loyalty, but the idea that they are more loyal is ridiculous for anyone who has actually read ASOS. 

There was 7,000 combined Northmen at the Red Wedding. Half of them were against Robb. And this was not some big surprise, Cat explains to Robb in the first book what his own bannermen are capable of

 If you turn your tail and retreat to Winterfell, your lords will lose all respect for you. Some may even go over to the Lannisters. 

The Northern Overlords, like every other, have to rule through strength as the mere sight of weakness will see their own vassals challenge them as none of them likely like being subjugated by a ruler anymore than the Starks do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

That does not seem to be true. GRRM explains why theres are more Lannisters than Starks in the current series

I disagree.  And I think it has to do with the severity of winter in the North versus the South.  Winterfell takes in people from all over, and it's quite clear that the Northern lords respect the Starks as providers in a way that the Southern lords don't with their respective overlords.  Which isn't to say the Northerners don't jockey for position and play the same games of feudal politics that the they do in the South; they clearly do.  But the attitude of the hill clans to Ned's memory is telling.  It's also made quite clear that the Boltons are clinging to political power in large part because of the appearance that Ramsay is married to Arya; Lady Dustin is explicit that "Arya's" mistreatment is alienating many lords.  This is despite the effective extinction of the Stark line (as far as anyone knows); there is no reason for these lords to be even remotely loyal to the Starks at this point, but they all are.  That speaks to the centrality of the Starks, along with phrases like "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell".  Also, the longevity of their line doesn't hurt.  The Arryns command this kind of loyalty, to an extent, but they postdate the Andal invasion.  The Baratheons, Tullys, and Tyrells have only held hegemonic power for three centuries.  The Martells are only about 1,000 years old.  And while the Lannisters also have a storied history, the last couple of generations seem to have eroded respect and replaced it with fear.

In fact, the only dynasty that is held in similar esteem is the Gardeners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It's also made quite clear that the Boltons are clinging to political power in large part because of the appearance that Ramsay is married to Arya; Lady Dustin is explicit that "Arya's" mistreatment is alienating many lords.  This is despite the effective extinction of the Stark line (as far as anyone knows); there is no reason for these lords to be even remotely loyal to the Starks at this point, but they all are.  

That's the same reason Lancel Lannister married a half-Darry Frey. Legitimacy is important in all of the Seven Kingdoms.

Is it really loyalty or just anger for the Red Wedding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I disagree.

With the author? 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

 And I think it has to do with the severity of winter in the North versus the South.  Winterfell takes in people from all over,

Not quite from all over. It takes people in from their own lands and the Mountain Clans. The other Lords of the land and their people don't flock to Winterfell in Winter. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

and it's quite clear that the Northern lords respect the Starks as providers in a way that the Southern lords don't with their respective overlords.

 

How is that clear? Please provide evidence and share this clarity with forum. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

 Which isn't to say the Northerners don't jockey for position and play the same games of feudal politics that the they do in the South; they clearly do.  But the attitude of the hill clans to Ned's memory is telling.

And how do you know the same is not true in every land? We simply not have seen enough or had the other realms put into a similar position than the Starks in the current series. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

 It's also made quite clear that the Boltons are clinging to political power in large part because of the appearance that Ramsay is married to Arya;

They are clinging to power because they currently appear to be the strongest faction in the North. I am pretty sure that is how is has always worked in medieval kindgoms. The moment a Lord/House looks vulnerable is when the vassals rebel. 

The idea that the North is some special snowflake in this regard is nonsense. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

Lady Dustin is explicit that "Arya's" mistreatment is alienating many lords.

'Many'? Can you provide that quote?

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

 This is despite the effective extinction of the Stark line (as far as anyone knows); there is no reason for these lords to be even remotely loyal to the Starks at this point, but they all are.

Did you not read ADWD? Lady Dustin's problems with Ramsay were around long before he was married to (F)Arya. You are making a disingenuous point right now. 

What some of the Roose's supporters have a problem with is that his heir, Ramsay, is a psychopath. For fairly obvious reasons they don't want to one day be ruled by this insane monster. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

 That speaks to the centrality of the Starks, along with phrases like "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell".  Also, the longevity of their line doesn't hurt.

The Starks, Arryns and Lannisters are all around the same age. I certainly don't think the average peasant has more loyalty due to one House being a slighly bit older than the other. 

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

  And while the Lannisters also have a storied history, the last couple of generations seem to have eroded respect and replaced it with fear.

Citation for this? 

There is zero evidence that the Westerland vassals are any more scared of the Lannisters than the Northern ones are of House Stark. 

Lets look at the evidence; Roose stays in line out of fear, rather than respect. The Greatjon had to be threatened into staying in line. The Dustins and Ryswells only sent as many men as they did out of fear of the consequences. Jorah was pretty fearful of Ned. 

I am sure it is the same in every realm, some Houses will be ruled by fear some by close ties to the Main Branch (for example the Lannisters have recent marriage ties to many of the most prominent Westerland Houses).

12 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

In fact, the only dynasty that is held in similar esteem is the Gardeners. 

Any quotes from the books that the Starks are held in higher esteem than the other Overlords? Any at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Hoare said:

That's the same reason Lancel Lannister married a half-Darry Frey. Legitimacy is important in all of the Seven Kingdoms.

Is it really loyalty or just anger for the Red Wedding?

It's a mixture of loyalty and anger for the RW. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

That does not seem to be true. GRRM explains why theres are more Lannisters than Starks in the current series

GRRM:It's also true that there are many more Lannisters. It also has to be taken into consideration that the North has had frequent revolts and other such problems, that there have been rebel lords in the past, that they've dealt with the Kings-beyond-the-Wall, and the revolt of Skagos, and everything else that's occured in the last hundred years. 

We only have to look at the Greatjon testing the waters with Robb in AGOT, or his uncles refusing to help Winterfell along with a number of other Houses such as the Dustins and Ryswells. 

 

Some do, some don't. Same as most Houses. 

Which is not backed up by the books. Tell me, which Overlord in the series was literally stabbed in the back by his own vassal?

I'm willing to give the Northern vassals the beneifit of the doubt and say they are the same as their Southern counterparts when it comes to loyalty, but the idea that they are more loyal is ridiculous for anyone who has actually read ASOS. 

There was 7,000 combined Northmen at the Red Wedding. Half of them were against Robb. And this was not some big surprise, Cat explains to Robb in the first book what his own bannermen are capable of

 If you turn your tail and retreat to Winterfell, your lords will lose all respect for you. Some may even go over to the Lannisters. 

The Northern Overlords, like every other, have to rule through strength as the mere sight of weakness will see their own vassals challenge them as none of them likely like being subjugated by a ruler anymore than the Starks do. 

 

 

This isn't going to be popular here, but i'm gonna say it. 

Martin answers questions to suit the narrative and plot of his books, and thats as it should be. 

But that doesn't mean everything that's happened in these books make sense. 

Martin structured his books around a close knit family being torn apart, then nearly burned to the ground, and then they arise in the climax of the books.

When you remember that he's building his world to suit the story he's telling, the silly things that don't make sense are now palatable.

Hence Moat Cailin being a vulnerable ruin when locationwise, it should be one of the best maintained castles in the north.

There's more Lannisters because they need to hold power better in the story, and the Starks need to be scattered, so they have a smaller family, even though if the families took after their sigils, there'd likely be way more Starks than Lannisters, as wolves breed more often, and have larger number of pups easily.

But i do agree that northern lords aren't much different than their southern counterparts, but i expect the Freys, Lannisters and Boltons are a special breed of avarice, at least in their current form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Frosted King said:

 

 

When you remember that he's building his world to suit the story he's telling, the silly things that don't make sense are now palatable.

Hence Moat Cailin being a vulnerable ruin when locationwise, it should be one of the best maintained castles in the north.

I disagree. The North has been part of the realm for three centuries, they have no need to  spend huge sums of money and resources on maintaining a castle in a swamp. It is a costly resource that serves no purpose for a realm that has far better things to spend their taxes on than protecting the border of another kingdom that that are actually a part of. 

Plus for the last thousand or so years the Starks have brought in the lands directly South of Moat Cailin into their Kingdom. What once, thousands of years ago, seemed an important concern no longer is. 

And Moat Cailin is still extremely effective against the South when properly manned. If you want to call the fifteen year old Robb stripping the North of too many soldiers as silly then fair enough, though his age and lack of experienced council seem to be more obvious reasons. 

 

Ned was best friends with both the King and the Hand, he had no reason to bother fortifying Moat Cailin in his lifetime. Robb did not realise he would be declaring Independence when he went South. No Stark had gone to war with a sittting King of Westeros in the last three centuries. Why exactly should Moat Cailin, with its poor land and poisoned water, be (constantly) maintained and garrisoned?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I disagree. The North has been part of the realm for three centuries, they have no need to  spend huge sums of money and resources on maintaining a castle in a swamp. It is a costly resource that serves no purpose for a realm that has far better things to spend their taxes on than protecting the border of another kingdom that that are actually a part of. 

Plus for the last thousand or so years the Starks have brought in the lands directly South of Moat Cailin into their Kingdom. What once, thousands of years ago, seemed an important concern no longer is. 

And Moat Cailin is still extremely effective against the South when properly manned. If you want to call the fifteen year old Robb stripping the North of too many soldiers as silly then fair enough, though his age and lack of experienced council seem to be more obvious reasons. 

 

Ned was best friends with both the King and the Hand, he had no reason to bother fortifying Moat Cailin in his lifetime. Robb did not realise he would be declaring Independence when he went South. No Stark had gone to war with a sittting King of Westeros in the last three centuries. Why exactly should Moat Cailin, with its poor land and poisoned water, be (constantly) maintained and garrisoned?

 

 

You're thinking of this as if the day now, is an accurate representation of what forever will be.

That would make you a bad lord. 

You take what you're given, and then you shore up weaknesses, and reinforce strengths.

Moat Cailin is vulnerable from the north, because its a ruin.

That might not have mattered when all the Starks were concerned about was the north alone, but once Ned married Catelyn, and established bonds of friendship with the riverlands, it's dilapidated state became a liability.

What if the Ironborn were silent during the beginning of the rebellion, only to swoop down on the north once Ned Stark came back south with an army, effectively doing what they would later do to his son?

As master of a domain, you MUST see what potential enemies can see, and work to strengthen any weak points. 

Swamps can be drained, and were, plenty of times throughout the past irl. 

The crannogmen can bleed an army, but if determined, they will get through.

And a way castle that is vulnerable from the north, and exposed to bitter pirate lords on the western sea needs to no longer be vulnerable from the north.

The Golden Tooth is strong, as is the Bloody Gate and the castles of the Dornish marches. 

The Moat being a ruin for a thousand years is bad management, but the north as a whole reeks of it. 

It made the Stark downfall easier to write, but nobody in story ever addresses it. It's an elephant in the room imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The Frosted King said:

 

You're thinking of this as if the day now, is an accurate representation of what forever will be.

That would make you a bad lord. 

A bad lord funnels money into a pointless defense instead of actually spending the taxes on things his people need. Lords have to live in the here and now and I imagine that both Winter and the Wall are higher priorities than Moat Cailin would ever have been in the last three centuries. 

Quote

 

Moat Cailin is vulnerable from the north, because its a ruin.

It has likely always been like that. How many times in the thousands of years in the North's history has the majority of the Northern army gone South to fight a war? A handful at most. It being vulnerable from the North has rarely been a problem. 

Quote

That might not have mattered when all the Starks were concerned about was the north alone, but once Ned married Catelyn, and established bonds of friendship with the riverlands, it's dilapidated state became a liability.

How so?

Quote

What if the Ironborn were silent during the beginning of the rebellion, only to swoop down on the north once Ned Stark came back south with an army, effectively doing what they would later do to his son?

I'd like to think that the older and more experienced Ned would not have left the North so weak of protection had he gone to war and left Benjen with better council and soldiers to help him. 

Robb was fifteen and his main council was the rash Theon. They planned poorly and left Winterell in the charge of a Maester and Bran (Rodrik being sent was Cat's command) while stripping Winterfell of all its experienced guards. 

Quote

As master of a domain, you MUST see what potential enemies can see, and work to strengthen any weak points. 

Swamps can be drained, and were, plenty of times throughout the past irl. 

The swamps act as part of the defense. Why would they bankrupt themselves trying to drain it? The North is not short of land.

If we were talking about the Lannisters then I would see your point, the Starks do not appear to be hugely cash rich. They have to be sensible with their money. 

Quote

The crannogmen can bleed an army, but if determined, they will get through.

How many times has an enemy army got through in the last 500 years?

Quote

And a way castle that is vulnerable from the north, and exposed to bitter pirate lords on the western sea needs to no longer be vulnerable from the north.

Smarter decision would be not to ever leave the North so poorly defended in the first place. Robb was influenced by Theon, he never saw the same threat from them that his father did. 

Quote

The Golden Tooth is strong,

Sure, It is a hugely rich mine. House Lefford are going to have far more resources to spend on their castle than the Starks do with Moat Cailin. Also the Golden Tooth does not have hundreds and hundreds of miles of swap infront of it. 

Quote

 

as is the Bloody Gate and the castles of the Dornish marches. 

Are they any more capable than Moat Cailin is in the current series? Moat Cailin is presented as one of the most formidable structures in the series but its strength. from conception, has to been from the South much like the Castles of the Wall are also vulnerable from the South. 

Quote

The Moat being a ruin for a thousand years is bad management, but the north as a whole reeks of it. 

They have more practical needs for their taxes. 

Quote

It made the Stark downfall easier to write, but nobody in story ever addresses it. It's an elephant in the room imo.

Did it? I really don't think so. Robb's age made the Stark downfall easier. Had he left more men in the North events would have been salvageable, had he not sent Theon home events would have been salvageable, had he not betrayed the Freys or executed Rickard events may have been salvageable. Had he not accepted the Crown events would definitely have been salvageable. 

Robb is a young romantic hero, but the North's precarious position was due to a lot of the decisions he made. At fifteen he should never have been put into such a situation, but he made a lot of mistakes and his refusal to make peace or join another claimant doomed him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

 text

It doesn't really matter that the northerners didn't went south often, they should still consider that possibility, especially now that they have married into a southron housd

Giving Moat Cailin to a lord and let him take care of it would be the best idea. It's not really that expensive, Moat Cailin is small. I'm actualy surprised that there's no lord holding it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

2. Be more forthcoming with Edmure about his plan to lure Tywin.

3. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

4. Keep a closer watch on both Jaime Lannister and Catelyn Stark.

5. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

6. Don't let Theon Greyjoy leave your sight.

7. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

8. Keep the Lannister hostages away from Lord Rickard's vicinity. Do what you can to placate Lord Rickard, but remind him that you are still the King in the North and if he hopes to retrieve his heir alive, he will play by your rules.

9. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

It doesn't really matter that the northerners didn't went south often, they should still consider that possibility, especially now that they have married into a southron housd

Giving Moat Cailin to a lord and let him take care of it would be the best idea. It's not really that expensive, Moat Cailin is small. I'm actualy surprised that there's no lord holding it

Moat Cailin is enormous, originally with twenty towers and walls as high as Moat Cailin. It would be hugely expensive to not only repair but maintain and garrison. 

And then of course there is the land, the water is poisoned meaning food and water would need to be imported furthering the costs of running this pointless castle. 

Is House Stark, with its broken towers and needs to survive Winter, rich enough to pay for a Lord to live at Moat Cailin?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ser Frasier of House Crane said:

1. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

2. Be more forthcoming with Edmure about his plan to lure Tywin.

3. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

4. Keep a closer watch on both Jaime Lannister and Catelyn Stark.

5. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

6. Don't let Theon Greyjoy leave your sight.

7. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

8. Keep the Lannister hostages away from Lord Rickard's vicinity. Do what you can to placate Lord Rickard, but remind him that you are still the King in the North and if he hopes to retrieve his heir alive, he will play by your rules.

9. Stick to the Frey marriage alliance.

i agree with everything except the frey marriage. i simply do not trust  that walder frey would have kept to his side of it in good faith. the he has a history of protecting his own ass during times of strife, and forswearing his oaths on technicalities. i know technicality is the soul of law, but in a medieval period such as the GOT, they are not so well developed as a society, especially in the north, to follow that line of thinking, though a lannister or tyrell or martell would. i honestly believe, as i look at his personality, that he would have gladly sold robb out to tywin, given the chance, whether robb kept to the bargain or not.

now, there were likely ways better ways he could have gotten out of it, if he had consulted his lords should a better prospect of alliance arise, not that one really did, just using it as point to illustrate that he might have done something more wisely about it if he had the advise and consent of his lords. a united front of the north would have maybe given pause to walder's temper.

and to those who debate about the loyalty of the north, i still hold that the northern loyalty is more honest than what you find in the south. yes, the game of thrones in played in the north, but playing politics is going to be on the same level of priority as it is in the south, survival in the dangerous environment of the north, with predators, bandits and wildlings, and the ever present northern winter on the horizon, the lords usually have other things to worry about than who happens to be sitting in the favor of the iron throne so far to the south. the stark were kings, KINGS, in the north for thousands of years before aegon ever set foot on westerosi soil. they managed to fully unite the north under them by the time the andals invaded, and kept the north free of the andals for at least 2000 years before the conquest, if not longer. no other house in westeros, save the maybe the lannsters, or the baratheons through the durrandon line, can claim that. so they have had that lnog to build a certain level of faith and trust between themselves and their vassal houses. if you want to use the boltons as an example of how the northern lords are just like the south, remember that the boltons, the red kings of the dreafort, were the house to hold out the longest, and with the bitterest grudges, against the stark before starks managed to ring them in with allies in the umbers, karstarks, hornwoods, manderlys, and other smaller houses, and force the subjugation of the dreadfort. i dont think the boltons ever really forgot that they used to hang the skins of flayed starks from their walls and backs. and while robb was young, energetic, with a natural talent for warfare, if inexperienced, he was also very naive when it came to politics, especially south of the neck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

i agree with everything except the frey marriage. i simply do not trust  that walder frey would have kept to his side of it in good faith. the he has a history of protecting his own ass during times of strife, and forswearing his oaths on technicalities.

Of course the Freys would have eventually opted out when things were looking bleak. The vast majority of the Robb's vassals, both Northern and Southern would have. GRRM explains it pretty simply;

GRRM: There was no one left to fight for, and the war was clearly lost anyway.The modern concept of "total war" really didn't exist in the medieval period. Armies were personal, as were loyalties. The leader who wanted to fight on till the last drop of blood might well have found himself fighting on alone, since his vassals were likely to have better sense, and their levies were more likely to follow their own lord than the "general."

Robb, had he continued to fight on despite the overwhelming odds would have seen many of his vassals leave him. He just gave the Freys a reason to do a little sooner. And of course, as GRRM points out, the savagery of thr Red Wedding was a direct result of the Robb's betrayal. 

And the North's potential to turn sides is actually pointed out in the very first book. 

CAT: If you turn your tail and retreat to Winterfell, your lords will lose all respect for you. Some may even go over to the Lannisters.

Few, if any, of Robb's vassals would have continued an unwinnable war. They would have put their own self interests first. They are no different to the Southern vassals in this regard. 

9 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

 

i know technicality is the soul of law, but in a medieval period such as the GOT, they are not so well developed as a society, especially in the north, to follow that line of thinking, though a lannister or tyrell or martell would. i honestly believe, as i look at his personality, that he would have gladly sold robb out to tywin, given the chance, whether robb kept to the bargain or not.

You mean like Roose and the three thousand five hundred Northmen with him did?

The biggest betrayal in the series to a Overlord has came from Northern vassals. That is simply a fact. And while I respect your 'belief', without offering up any actual evidence from the books I am going to accept the books version that there is a little difference between the loyalties of the respective regions. 

9 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

 

and to those who debate about the loyalty of the north, i still hold that the northern loyalty is more honest than what you find in the south. 

And what is this belief based on in the books? That the Starks and the North are the 'goodies' so must be better than their bad Southern counterparts? That the Northern nobility do not have their own self interests and ambitions much like any other noble in a medieval world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

Is House Stark, with its broken towers and needs to survive Winter, rich enough to pay for a Lord to live at Moat Cailin?

 

 

Probably. Even the Harlaws, that came from the poorest of the Seven Kingdoms, managed to raise a whole new castle(Ten Towers) for no strategic reason. The Starks probably have the means to maintain Moat Cailin if they wanted.

It doesn't need necessarialy to be the same size as it once was, just enough to properly defend itself and prevent the castle from crumbling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

Probably. Even the Harlaws, that came from the poorest of the Seven Kingdoms, managed to raise a whole new castle(Ten Towers) for no strategic reason.

Their current castle was blamed for the deaths of one Lords sons and often flooded. They actually had great reason to rebuild a new castle. And of course the Harlaws are the richest of the Ironborn

"You do with me. So long as I have my nuncle of Ten Towers, I have Harlaw." Harlaw was not the largest of the Iron Islands, but it was the richest and most populous, and Lord Rodrik's power was not to be despised. 

They would have the funds to rebuild a new castle for themselves, especially when the previous one was pretty poor to begin with. 

And of course this seems to be a bad comparison. The Harlaws did not build Ten Towers for some other House to hold it. The castle is the seat of House Harlaw, it sustains itself. A garrisoned Moat Cailin requires the Starks to fund it. 

1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

 

The Starks probably have the means to maintain Moat Cailin if they wanted.

 

Sure. Just like they have the means to repair their broken Tower or a great deal many things. But other things clearly take priority. The Starks own words, Winter is Coming, speaks of the main threat to the North. Wasting money on a  vanity project like Moat Cailin is just a waste and likely many would suffer with taxes being diverted to that project when they could be used elsewhere. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

i agree with everything except the frey marriage. i simply do not trust  that walder frey would have kept to his side of it in good faith. the he has a history of protecting his own ass during times of strife, and forswearing his oaths on technicalities. i know technicality is the soul of law, but in a medieval period such as the GOT, they are not so well developed as a society, especially in the north, to follow that line of thinking, though a lannister or tyrell or martell would. i honestly believe, as i look at his personality, that he would have gladly sold robb out to tywin, given the chance, whether robb kept to the bargain or not.

If Robb's plan to corner Tywin works, all of a sudden, the Lannister power base at King's Landing is in ruin. The Lannisters don't align with the Tyrells if Tywin is captured or killed, which means Stannis seizes King's Landing and overthrows Joffrey. So Walder Frey would have no reason to betray Robb. The worst he could do is not marshal his troops against Stannis if Stannis decides to march on the North to take it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to at least the show there are main things Robb should have done differently.

1. Kept Theon by his side instead of sending him to Pyke.(Theon doesn't sack winterfell)

2. Send his mother to Stannis instead of Renly or not at all. (Doesn't meet Brienne and has know chaperone for Jaime in his second escape attempt and Stannis probably doesn't put Robb's name in with the blood leeches)

3. Keep his vow to Walder Frey and or Listen to his mother about sparing Lord Karstarks life.

4. Name the Blackfish the commanding officer of Riverrun. (So Edmure doesn't disobey Robb's orders and engage tywin and the mountain at the Battle of Stone Mill)

If Robb had done these four/five things he'd probably have conquered Casterly Rock, Killed or captured Tywin and or the mountain, Stannis would have captured King's Landing, Rickon would still be safe behind the walls of Winterfell and Arya would have reunited with Robb and her mom by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And of course this seems to be a bad comparison. The Harlaws did not build Ten Towers for some other House to hold it. The castle is the seat of House Harlaw, it sustains itself. A garrisoned Moat Cailin requires the Starks to fund it. 

Harlaw is rich, but not as rich as the Starks. Harlaw Hall, the old Harlaw seat is still being ruled by a cadet branch, the same happens with Grey Garden and Harridan Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×