When it comes to major battles, is there a pattern which side wins?

[Tyrion1991]

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

The entire thematic arc of the books is to discredit exactly this idea.

Tywin Lannister is all about humiliation, about escalating conflict and crushing enemies entirely and making them fear him.  And his legacy is both literally and figuratively shit (his corpse stinks and his political legacy is eating itself alive within months of his death).

Ned Stark is about respect.  About listening to vassals and those lower than himself, about teaching his kids that family matters, that compassion is important, that those who have less material wealth and influence aren't necessarily lesser beings.  And he has the entire political community of the North ready to rise up and "sup on another serving of grief and death" just to protect his legacy.

 

Rob Stark was a war criminal whose actions directly caused hundreds of thousands of people to die. He is not some sweet pup who wanted peace for his dear people. Those Lords would certainly have demanded independence even if Ned had been allowed to leave. Joffrey simply gave them an excuse to invade the Riverlands and carve up their own Kingdom.

It was “a stupid rebellion” no different than Balons. He took a Kingdom with 20k men and hurled against what was at the time the entirety of Westeros with only one ally; outnumbered a dozen to one. Once his luck ran out, him and his men were justly chopped up for their sins. 

All so that he could wear a crown on his head and his Lords partake in the glory of another war. They expected a rerun of Roberts Rebellion and got crushed. It was an act of absurd hubris.

So no I don’t see why calling the Starks names and humiliating the Kings of Winter is a bad thing. Pointing out how ridiculous and hypocritical they are. Laughing at them calling themselves Wolves in Wintery Winters Town. They are a joke. They’re blind to the suffering their actions have caused and words cannot absolve them of that. How many innocent people do you think that proud Northern host massacred? 

This stems from the northerners self professed belief that they are the First Men. Chosen people who are better than corrupt and weak southerners. So they are not bound by any southern oath or obligations. They’ve always wanted to be free and needed the flimsiest of excuses to do so. Had Ned not been Roberts friend, the North would certainly have seceded. 

Also, a House Divided cannot stand. So Northern Independence directly imperils the realms ability to fight the Others.  

 

 

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Rob Stark was a war criminal whose actions directly caused hundreds of thousands of people to die. He is not some sweet pup who wanted peace for his dear people. Those Lords would certainly have demanded independence even if Ned had been allowed to leave. Joffrey simply gave them an excuse to invade the Riverlands and carve up their own Kingdom.

Lol.  Yeah, sure.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It was “a stupid rebellion” no different than Balons. He took a Kingdom with 20k men and hurled against what was at the time the entirety of Westeros with only one ally; outnumbered a dozen to one. Once his luck ran out, him and his men were justly chopped up for their sins. 

Actually, this is wrong.  He took his kingdom and marched for a specific purpose - to liberate his father from Lannister clutches.  How, exactly, was he to accomplish this without the threat of military force?  Lets state this for the record: the Starks, and anyone else who rebelled against the Iron Throne, is 100% justified in doing so.  The Lannister/Baratheon regime had broken the feudal contract several times over, and Robb had every right to rebel.  Joffrey has no legitimate claim to his allegiance, and while Stannis might, the Starks don't find out the truth of Joffrey's parentage in time for it to matter.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

All so that he could wear a crown on his head and his Lords partake in the glory of another war. They expected a rerun of Roberts Rebellion and got crushed. It was an act of absurd hubris.

They... didn't get crushed?  In fact it's only the massive finger-on-the-scales GRRM has got going on that the Starks don't win outright.

Besides which, Robb doesn't crown himself, he is crowned.  There is massive difference.  Robb cannot say no, cannot back down, without losing the loyalty of his vassals.  He has no choice once they proclaim him king.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So no I don’t see why calling the Starks names and humiliating the Kings of Winter is a bad thing. Pointing out how ridiculous and hypocritical they are. Laughing at them calling themselves Wolves in Wintery Winters Town. They are a joke. They’re blind to the suffering their actions have caused and words cannot absolve them of that. How many innocent people do you think that proud Northern host massacred? 

Innocent deaths in wartime are to be lamented and in all possible ways prevented.  That they occur doesn't undermine the fundamental legitimacy of the Stark cause.  It's like saying that because innocent Germans died in WWII, we should have let Hitler have his way, because anyone innocent dying means that there is moral equivalency between both sides in a war.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

This stems from the northerners self professed belief that they are the First Men. Chosen people who are better than corrupt and weak southerners. So they are not bound by any southern oath or obligations. They’ve always wanted to be free and needed the flimsiest of excuses to do so. Had Ned not been Roberts friend, the North would certainly have seceded. 

Yes, and they would have had good reason then, too.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Also, a House Divided cannot stand. So Northern Independence directly imperils the realms ability to fight the Others.  

Well, since the Lannisters are not only not helping, but actively undermining the Night's Watch, you'd have to actually say the opposite is true.  Northern independence is the only thing that might conceptually provide a rallying point for the defense against the Others.  Is all of this news to you, did you read the same books?

[Tyrion1991]

4 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Lol.  Yeah, sure.

Actually, this is wrong.  He took his kingdom and marched for a specific purpose - to liberate his father from Lannister clutches.  How, exactly, was he to accomplish this without the threat of military force?  Lets state this for the record: the Starks, and anyone else who rebelled against the Iron Throne, is 100% justified in doing so.  The Lannister/Baratheon regime had broken the feudal contract several times over, and Robb had every right to rebel.  Joffrey has no legitimate claim to his allegiance, and while Stannis might, the Starks don't find out the truth of Joffrey's parentage in time for it to matter.

They... didn't get crushed?  In fact it's only the massive finger-on-the-scales GRRM has got going on that the Starks don't win outright.

Besides which, Robb doesn't crown himself, he is crowned.  There is massive difference.  Robb cannot say no, cannot back down, without losing the loyalty of his vassals.  He has no choice once they proclaim him king.

Innocent deaths in wartime are to be lamented and in all possible ways prevented.  That they occur doesn't undermine the fundamental legitimacy of the Stark cause.  It's like saying that because innocent Germans died in WWII, we should have let Hitler have his way, because anyone innocent dying means that there is moral equivalency between both sides in a war.

Yes, and they would have had good reason then, too.

Well, since the Lannisters are not only not helping, but actively undermining the Night's Watch, you'd have to actually say the opposite is true.  Northern independence is the only thing that might conceptually provide a rallying point for the defense against the Others.  Is all of this news to you, did you read the same books?

 

Rob Stark never helped the NW. He took the Northern army away from the North not only with the a wildlings about to breach the wall but with Others. Had either breached the wall they would have killed everything to the neck before Rob could do anything. He doomed his people.

Why did he stay then? Once Ned does there was no purpose to war beyond bloody vengeance. One petty mans family filled the Riverland with dead. When Jamie wanders the Riverland you see them butchering the smallfolk. The Brotherhood justly see the Northern host as a monstrosity. He creates the situation that repeatedly almost kills his own sister. I am sorry but, “best of intentions” does not cut it. What of the vengeance of the small folk his army raped and butchered? 

I read a book about a self righteous family who think that because they’re humble homespun folk they can dam the consequences of their own actions. They are a symptom of the illness, not the solution. In fact, at least the Lannister’s, Frey’s and Greyjoy’s are honest about what they are. The Starks blather on lecturing about courage and honour, proud Kings of Winter, but when it comes down to it they lust after their vengeance and don’t care how many people die to get it. They are vulgar and the only finger on the scales is the one keeping the Starks weak so they don’t go on a rampage. If you gave Sansa an army thousands of innocent people would die and for what? 

 

[cpg2016]

54 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Rob Stark never helped the NW. He took the Northern army away from the North not only with the a wildlings about to breach the wall but with Others. Had either breached the wall they would have killed everything to the neck before Rob could do anything. He doomed his people.

What does this have to do with anything?  He wasn't aware of threat until he had marched south.  He also didn't march to free slaves in Astapor, you forgot to blame him for that too.

Quote

Why did he stay then? Once Ned does there was no purpose to war beyond bloody vengeance. One petty mans family filled the Riverland with dead. When Jamie wanders the Riverland you see them butchering the smallfolk. The Brotherhood justly see the Northern host as a monstrosity. He creates the situation that repeatedly almost kills his own sister. I am sorry but, “best of intentions” does not cut it. What of the vengeance of the small folk his army raped and butchered? 

When you refer to one petty man, I assume you mean Tywin Lannister? He (Robb) stays to fight for independence, because the Lannisters will continue their escalating series of overly-violent reprisals (which they initiate, bear in mind) against Robb's vassals.  Because people have put their faith in his ability to defend them against truly immoral and monstrous people, and he feels that responsibility keenly.

The Brotherhood don't see the Northmen as a monstrosity.  They see the renegade Karstark men as a monstrosity.  We actually don't hear anything about anyone under Robb's command butchering or raping anyone.  And to my point about collateral damage - we shouldn't condone it, but nor should we let it blind us to the fact that one side is morally justified and the other isn't.

Quote

I read a book about a self righteous family who think that because they’re humble homespun folk they can dam the consequences of their own actions. They are a symptom of the illness, not the solution. In fact, at least the Lannister’s, Frey’s and Greyjoy’s are honest about what they are. The Starks blather on lecturing about courage and honour, proud Kings of Winter, but when it comes down to it they lust after their vengeance and don’t care how many people die to get it. They are vulgar and the only finger on the scales is the one keeping the Starks weak so they don’t go on a rampage. If you gave Sansa an army thousands of innocent people would die and for what? 

Actually the Freys and Lannisters aren't honest about what they are.  They're just terrible liars.

Your not a very good troll, since you obviously have only watched the show.  I think there is a separate subforum for that

[Tyrion1991]

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

What does this have to do with anything?  He wasn't aware of threat until he had marched south.  He also didn't march to free slaves in Astapor, you forgot to blame him for that too.

When you refer to one petty man, I assume you mean Tywin Lannister? He (Robb) stays to fight for independence, because the Lannisters will continue their escalating series of overly-violent reprisals (which they initiate, bear in mind) against Robb's vassals.  Because people have put their faith in his ability to defend them against truly immoral and monstrous people, and he feels that responsibility keenly.

The Brotherhood don't see the Northmen as a monstrosity.  They see the renegade Karstark men as a monstrosity.  We actually don't hear anything about anyone under Robb's command butchering or raping anyone.  And to my point about collateral damage - we shouldn't condone it, but nor should we let it blind us to the fact that one side is morally justified and the other isn't.

Actually the Freys and Lannisters aren't honest about what they are.  They're just terrible liars.

Your not a very good troll, since you obviously have only watched the show.  I think there is a separate subforum for that

 

Ive read all of the books. 

You know all Stark fanboys are cut from the same cloth. I honestly can’t tell you people apart. You seem to think that being a brooding Puritan who blathers on about duty makes you a good person and worthy of respect. It doesn’t. Actions speak louder than words. These people are feudal warlords who do not remotely care about the consequences of their actions. Rob was a monster who got what was coming to him. His family members are set up for a very dark path of cold vengeance. Just because George doesn’t go to the open satire that is Stannis Baratheon doesn’t mean the Starks are blameless little white wolves. 

 

 

 

[cpg2016]

On 7/25/2019 at 5:08 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

Ive read all of the books. 

You know all Stark fanboys are cut from the same cloth. I honestly can’t tell you people apart. You seem to think that being a brooding Puritan who blathers on about duty makes you a good person and worthy of respect. It doesn’t. Actions speak louder than words. These people are feudal warlords who do not remotely care about the consequences of their actions. Rob was a monster who got what was coming to him. His family members are set up for a very dark path of cold vengeance. Just because George doesn’t go to the open satire that is Stannis Baratheon doesn’t mean the Starks are blameless little white wolves. 

Reading and understanding seem to be two vastly different things, in your case.

You are right, actions speak louder than words.  All of the nobles in ASOIAF are "petty warlords" who don't much care for those under their command (though not all of them).  GRRM doesn't try and hide that fact.  But he also makes it quite clear that what they fight for makes a difference.  Ned Stark believed in community and family and his legacy reflects that.  Tywin Lannister believed in domination and the innate superiority of his family, and his legacy reflects that too.  One of those men has inspired fanatical loyalty after his death, and one of them literally started rotting the moment he died.

And to call Robb a "monster" is to be a child.  You are either very young, very immature, or very stupid.  To not understand that some things are worth fighting for is the opinion of a child.  To not understand the context of the (admittedly fictional) situation Robb was in is to be an ignoramus.  Was FDR a callous monster for engaging against fascism?  Presumably not.

No one is claiming the Starks are blameless or pure.  And many of them are poised to go down dark paths, or are already on it (e.g. Lady Stoneheart).  But that doesn't mean they aren't better than many of their contemporaries.  They cling to real values in the face of tragedy or opposition, relatable values, and that is going to be their story.  They are all going to be tempted down the dark path you mention, and I think they all turn from that to embrace Ned's values, of respect for all men, of duty and sacrifice, and love of family.  That's the message ASOIAF is meant to send, and we can already see that, and anyone who thinks the series is nihilistic for its own sake has completely misunderstood the text.

[Tyrion1991]

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Reading and understanding seem to be two vastly different things, in your case.

You are right, actions speak louder than words.  All of the nobles in ASOIAF are "petty warlords" who don't much care for those under their command (though not all of them).  GRRM doesn't try and hide that fact.  But he also makes it quite clear that what they fight for makes a difference.  Ned Stark believed in community and family and his legacy reflects that.  Tywin Lannister believed in domination and the innate superiority of his family, and his legacy reflects that too.  One of those men has inspired fanatical loyalty after his death, and one of them literally started rotting the moment he died.

And to call Robb a "monster" is to be a child.  You are either very young, very immature, or very stupid.  To not understand that some things are worth fighting for is the opinion of a child.  To not understand the context of the (admittedly fictional) situation Robb was in is to be an ignoramus.  Was FDR a callous monster for engaging against fascism?  Presumably not.

No one is claiming the Starks are blameless or pure.  And many of them are poised to go down dark paths, or are already on it (e.g. Lady Stoneheart).  But that doesn't mean they aren't better than many of their contemporaries.  They cling to real values in the face of tragedy or opposition, relatable values, and that is going to be their story.  They are all going to be tempted down the dark path you mention, and I think they all turn from that to embrace Ned's values, of respect for all men, of duty and sacrifice, and love of family.  That's the message ASOIAF is meant to send, and we can already see that, and anyone who thinks the series is nihilistic for its own sake has completely misunderstood the text.

 

People very much do claim the Starks to be blameless and pure (you are doing this right now); which is a direct response to how they are presented. Why is Dany the only character constantly having it insinuated that it would be better for the world if she turned her back on it? You haven’t seen this in any of the Stark desires to retake Winterfell and the North for example. 

So why shouldn’t Rob be criticised? If he really does have the best of intentions in taking a crown and carving out an empire in the Riverlands? You don’t see blame placed on him personally for the consequences of his actions. Whereas with Dany this is constant. 

The logical conclusion is that we are meant to view Danys actions as more reprehensible than Robs. Which is extremely questionable because George pulled his punches with the Northerners magically able to not pillage the Riverlands and avoid pointing the finger at the Starks for causing the war. You can’t demonise Dany for not thinking’s about the consequences of her actions and how it affects the little people whilst simultaneously chalking everything the Starks do to “war is hell”. If the small folk don’t care about the games the high Lords play then his petty vengeance has caused untold suffering to the Riverlands. That is on him just as much as the chaos in Slavers Bay is on Dany. But that’s not how the text depicts it.

[teej6]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:02 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

The logical conclusion is that we are meant to view Danys actions as more reprehensible than Robs. Which is extremely questionable because George pulled his punches with the Northerners magically able to not pillage the Riverlands and avoid pointing the finger at the Starks for causing the war. You can’t demonise Dany for not thinking’s about the consequences of her actions and how it affects the little people whilst simultaneously chalking everything the Starks do to “war is hell”. If the small folk don’t care about the games the high Lords play then his petty vengeance has caused untold suffering to the Riverlands. That is on him just as much as the chaos in Slavers Bay is on Dany. But that’s not how the text depicts it.

I’ve seen several of your posts lately going on and on about Martin giving a pass or “pulling his punches” when it comes to the Starks. Here’s a news flash for you, the story and characters are Martin’s to do with them what he wishes. If he wishes to show the Starks as noble, sympathetic, and morally superior to the other characters in the books that’s his prerogative. If you don’t like what he writes, tough luck. And FYI, nowhere in the books is it stated or even remotely hinted that Rob was a “monster” or that he commanded his men to pillage the smallfolk... this is your imagined or desired version of the books. There is mention of Northmen committing atrocities but not on Robb’s command or with his knowledge. 

Here’s another news flash for you, every indication from the books (and that abomination) is that the Starks are the protagonists of the story, so perhaps it’s best you stop reading and that way others on this forum won’t have to listen to anymore of your whining about how Martin makes the Starks look good and boohoo Dany gets all the flak.  

[Tyrion1991]

50 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I’ve seen several of your posts lately going on and on about Martin giving a pass or “pulling his punches” when it comes to the Starks. Here’s a news flash for you, the story and characters are Martin’s to do with them what he wishes. If he wishes to show the Starks as noble, sympathetic, and morally superior to the other characters in the books that’s his prerogative. If you don’t like what he writes, tough luck. And FYI, nowhere in the books is it stated or even remotely hinted that Rob was a “monster” or that he commanded his men to pillage the smallfolk... this is your imagined or desired version of the books. There is mention of Northmen committing atrocities but not on Robb’s command or with his knowledge. 

Here’s another news flash for you, every indication from the books (and that abomination) is that the Starks are the protagonists of the story, so perhaps it’s best you stop reading and that way others on this forum won’t have to listen to anymore of your whining about how Martin makes the Starks look good and boohoo Dany gets all the flak.  

 

Listen? Nobody is asking you to read.

Ive already read the books. Stopping isn’t really an option here.

I never said the story wasn’t his. He can do as he pleases. That doesn’t mean I should like it or keep my opinion to myself.

Its a shame because so much of the story is great. Outside of the whitewashed Starks it has some amazing characters and real hard hitting exploration of the very real and very harsh consequences of some of the fantasy tropes. However, he undermines that entirely by having the sainted and beloved Starks who did no wrong and have a near perfect Germanic warrior society.

Because if you don’t explore the consequences of Robs invasion then you are essentially hand waving the consequences of waging war. It’s a just war led by a just man who reigns his men in and he mobilises an army that can feasibly be supported by his people without causing undue hardship. This is absurd.

What’s the point of having a serious conversation about the rights and wrong of what Dany is doing if I am constantly being reminded by people on this forum that “but the Starks never killed anyone. If Rob was freeing the slaves then he’d be merciful and smarts about it”. So the very presence of the Starks in the story colours your interpretation of Dany as a character.

To take another example. In AFFC George has a priest make a big anti war speech. That’s entirely undermined if you don’t point blame at the Starks for having caused the war and brought that hardship upon their people. War is obviously just if the wise Kings of Winter and noble Northmen fight it; so he’s just being a cynical pacifist.

So George is undermining quite a lot of the themes he brings up in other parts of the story by having the Starks and the North get a pass. 

 

[Tai Pan]

Is there a pattern which side wins?

I wouldn't call it a pattern but let's say the party who sees outside the battlefield wins.  The big winners have been leaders who can see beyond the battle and use resources outside the battle to ensure victory ahead of time.  The masters at this are Tywin Lannister and Daenerys Targaryen.

Tywin was not going to beat Robb in face to face battle but he looked outside the battlefield to crush the Starks.  He found two equally able men to find common cause with him against the Starks.  

Dany has done the same clever out of the box thinking time and time again.  Astapor, with Oznak zo Phal, and Mero.  

 

[cpg2016]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:02 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 

People very much do claim the Starks to be blameless and pure (you are doing this right now); which is a direct response to how they are presented. Why is Dany the only character constantly having it insinuated that it would be better for the world if she turned her back on it? You haven’t seen this in any of the Stark desires to retake Winterfell and the North for example. 

I just said they weren't.  How do you make this crap up?  Robb wasn't perfect, but he's better than Tywin or Renly.  Stannis has his faults, but he's a better man and would be a better king than Joffrey.

On 8/23/2019 at 2:02 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

So why shouldn’t Rob be criticised? If he really does have the best of intentions in taking a crown and carving out an empire in the Riverlands? You don’t see blame placed on him personally for the consequences of his actions. Whereas with Dany this is constant. 

Again, you don't seem capable of understanding that I have not said Robb shouldn't be criticized.  Please quote me on that one, and I'll shut up, but since I know you cannot, I'll reiterate - Robb isn't above criticism, but that doesn't make him morally equivalent to a Tywin Lannister.

You have this absurd opinion that any character who has committed an even marginally unjust infraction against someone/something is no better than the worst, most amoral characters in the series.  And I will repeat, that is a child's view.  

And by the way, Robb is consistently criticized for his actions.  A huge portion of the fandom still thinks that his being a horny teenager is why the Stark cause falls apart, when it's been demonstrably proven that the Frey/Bolton betrayal predated anything to do with Jeyne.  By more intelligent readers, he's criticized for trusting Roose Bolton in the first place.  But we don't have any interiority for Robb; we don't see his POV.  All we see are his actions, and those are, in context, mostly above reproach.  He's dealt a shit hand and plays it as well as he can.

On 8/23/2019 at 2:02 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

The logical conclusion is that we are meant to view Danys actions as more reprehensible than Robs. Which is extremely questionable because George pulled his punches with the Northerners magically able to not pillage the Riverlands and avoid pointing the finger at the Starks for causing the war. You can’t demonise Dany for not thinking’s about the consequences of her actions and how it affects the little people whilst simultaneously chalking everything the Starks do to “war is hell”. If the small folk don’t care about the games the high Lords play then his petty vengeance has caused untold suffering to the Riverlands. That is on him just as much as the chaos in Slavers Bay is on Dany. But that’s not how the text depicts it.

Firstly, I haven't made any of these claims.  And while some might, most intelligent people wouldn't.  Dany's conflict and story are meant to illustrate different points, and drive her arc in another direction than Robb's or any of the Westerosi characters.  It's kind of shocking you aren't capable of picking up on this.

And again, we have Dany's thoughts on her motivations.  It's easier to judge her motivations because we hear it from her own mouth.  We don't get that with Robb.  Dany is an admirable character because she is trying to be just, trying to reform an entire society without ripping out its decadent and evil ruling class root and branch, and that is a much different prospect than what Robb is trying to do, which doesn't involve any fundamental change to Westeros.

The chaos in Slaver's Bay isn't Dany's fault.  The text is pretty clear on that, and if that is your takeaway than you need to read it a couple more times.  It's very self-evidently the fault of the slaving class; GRRM's sympathies do not lie with the slavers.  They lie with Dany.  The question isn't, "is all this suffering Dany's fault?" because self-evidently it isn't.  The question is "To what degree will Dany have to sacrifice her principles to achieve peace with a group that is consciously eroding those principles bit by bit, in order to return to the status quo ante bellum?" and also "at what point does Dany's patience snap and she just solves her problems with fire and blood?"

Basically, if you're viewing ASOIAF as a blanket endorsement of the Starks, and an insulting negative take on Dany, then you should buy the novels in whatever your native language is, because you aren't reading the text properly.  The Starks are plenty criticized, and Dany's anti-slavery crusade is shown for the triumph it is, on multiple occasions.  Your insistence that anyone who commits one bad act is now the moral equivalent of the most despotic, evil character you can name, is absurd on it's face.  Robb Stark goes to war, and acts far more ethically within the context of that war, than does Tywin Lannister or Renly Baratheon.  No one is excusing the pillage and rapine that most certainly goes in the wake of his army, the same as all the other ones.  But there is a difference between having followers like Rickard Karstark, who betray confidences to murder innocents and is punished for it, versus Gregor Clegane, who was set loose with the instruction to rape and burn and kill everything in his path.  One is a regrettable individual act of violence, a crime, that is punished as such; the other is a war crime on a massive scale that is knowingly ordered (and not to mention is in a long line of similar such orders from Tywin).

[Tyrion1991]

20 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I just said they weren't.  How do you make this crap up?  Robb wasn't perfect, but he's better than Tywin or Renly.  Stannis has his faults, but he's a better man and would be a better king than Joffrey.

Again, you don't seem capable of understanding that I have not said Robb shouldn't be criticized.  Please quote me on that one, and I'll shut up, but since I know you cannot, I'll reiterate - Robb isn't above criticism, but that doesn't make him morally equivalent to a Tywin Lannister.

You have this absurd opinion that any character who has committed an even marginally unjust infraction against someone/something is no better than the worst, most amoral characters in the series.  And I will repeat, that is a child's view.  

And by the way, Robb is consistently criticized for his actions.  A huge portion of the fandom still thinks that his being a horny teenager is why the Stark cause falls apart, when it's been demonstrably proven that the Frey/Bolton betrayal predated anything to do with Jeyne.  By more intelligent readers, he's criticized for trusting Roose Bolton in the first place.  But we don't have any interiority for Robb; we don't see his POV.  All we see are his actions, and those are, in context, mostly above reproach.  He's dealt a shit hand and plays it as well as he can.

Firstly, I haven't made any of these claims.  And while some might, most intelligent people wouldn't.  Dany's conflict and story are meant to illustrate different points, and drive her arc in another direction than Robb's or any of the Westerosi characters.  It's kind of shocking you aren't capable of picking up on this.

And again, we have Dany's thoughts on her motivations.  It's easier to judge her motivations because we hear it from her own mouth.  We don't get that with Robb.  Dany is an admirable character because she is trying to be just, trying to reform an entire society without ripping out its decadent and evil ruling class root and branch, and that is a much different prospect than what Robb is trying to do, which doesn't involve any fundamental change to Westeros.

The chaos in Slaver's Bay isn't Dany's fault.  The text is pretty clear on that, and if that is your takeaway than you need to read it a couple more times.  It's very self-evidently the fault of the slaving class; GRRM's sympathies do not lie with the slavers.  They lie with Dany.  The question isn't, "is all this suffering Dany's fault?" because self-evidently it isn't.  The question is "To what degree will Dany have to sacrifice her principles to achieve peace with a group that is consciously eroding those principles bit by bit, in order to return to the status quo ante bellum?" and also "at what point does Dany's patience snap and she just solves her problems with fire and blood?"

Basically, if you're viewing ASOIAF as a blanket endorsement of the Starks, and an insulting negative take on Dany, then you should buy the novels in whatever your native language is, because you aren't reading the text properly.  The Starks are plenty criticized, and Dany's anti-slavery crusade is shown for the triumph it is, on multiple occasions.  Your insistence that anyone who commits one bad act is now the moral equivalent of the most despotic, evil character you can name, is absurd on it's face.  Robb Stark goes to war, and acts far more ethically within the context of that war, than does Tywin Lannister or Renly Baratheon.  No one is excusing the pillage and rapine that most certainly goes in the wake of his army, the same as all the other ones.  But there is a difference between having followers like Rickard Karstark, who betray confidences to murder innocents and is punished for it, versus Gregor Clegane, who was set loose with the instruction to rape and burn and kill everything in his path.  One is a regrettable individual act of violence, a crime, that is punished as such; the other is a war crime on a massive scale that is knowingly ordered (and not to mention is in a long line of similar such orders from Tywin).

 

I haven’t brought Tywin into this and why should I exactly. Does Rob become a worse person if Tywin is Mr Reasonable and his fathers son? The two aren’t related. Rob can still be criticised strongly enough without him being “as bad” as Tywin Lannister. If you want to compare Hitler to Mussolini then fair enough but Iam not really doing that.

Explain how it is a marginal infraction to drag an entire nation into a war to avenge the death of one man? This is an aristocratic blood feud. Hundreds of thousands die as a consequence of this, with the only object being Rob getting revenge, a crown and a few hostages exchanged. How can he reasonably imperil thousands of his subjects lives for the sake of his own family? In any other story, if a bunch of aristocrats did that it would be subject of immense criticism and condemnation. That’s like Blackadder where the people are dragged into a pointless war to die for the vanity and vain glory of a privileged class. It is morally repugnant to depict that as a romantic struggle between good and evil.

Those are Machiavellian criticisms of what Rob is doing wrong and how he could have won. They aren’t moral criticisms. You can make Machiavellian criticisms of Dany as well, but the text is far more weighted towards moral condemnation. It’s not “a mistake” to trust Mirri, it’s a moral tale in which one of the little people gets back at her. 

A war to carve out an independent realm and conquer the Riverlands is a fundamental change to Westeros. It’s the biggest attempt to change the borders of Westeros since Aegons Conquest. Far more important than ending slavery in three cities at the edge of the world.

We don’t have his POV but we see his story through Cat. So there was plenty of opportunity and chances to bring up criticisms of “just war” and for him to meet a Mirri character. We don’t see this.

The moral criticism of Dany begins almost from the first chapter, well before she gets to Slavers Bay. In Clash there’s a very revealing section where she reflects that she wants her realm to be a happy place filled with jolly people; “but first I must conquer”. To which we then see her later thinking that all she brings is dust and death in Storm of Swords. So the criticism is very clear cut. Dany is being criticised for using power and violence to set things right; a greater good mentality. Whether thats ending slavery or retaking Westeros is immaterial as the same thread runs through her story. My issue is that Rob and the Starks actions are not depicted in this manner. Carving out the North and Riverlands is using power and violence to in theory make the world right. Taking the Wildlings down to Winterfell is using power and violence to set the world to rights. What you’re saying is that these questions aren’t applicable or relevant to the Stark story. But by sidestepping them or pulling punches it’s basically accepting that these are just wars. If I am only asked to question if Danys war is just but never asked that of a Stark character then that is the text singling her out.

For the slavery point specifically George shows his hand in Tyrion’s POV when it’s revealed that, actually (despite all their actions contradicting this), the Slavers were interested in a peaceful political settlement and were bluffing about their military strength. They never believed they could beat Dany. Meaning Dany choosing war is being depicted as a grave mistake that will cost millions of needless lives. So in Winds we are going to have a situation where the Slavers get pulverised at Mereen and then Dany unleashes the Dothraki on them after they have been beaten and are probably going to be pleading mercy. Not to mention a massive escalation. There is almost certainly going to be heavy criticism of Dany in Winds for this.

You are basically saying Rob can’t be doing anything wrong because he isn’t Tywin. This is equivalent of saying the allies couldn’t do anything wrong because they weren’t Nazis. If you think one hotheaded Northern Lord killing a few people is George adding shades of grey to the North then we have very different notions of morally grey. He’s depicted as a rogue element who defies Robs express command. When, implicitly, the very act of bringing 20k men into the Riverlands would kill far more people than one thick skulled Northern Lord. George sidesteps the real moral problem with Robs actions entirely. The North and Rob are whitewashed and criticism is not as pointed and direct as it is with Dany. 

[The Young Maester]

2 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Explain how it is a marginal infraction to drag an entire nation into a war to avenge the death of one man? This is an aristocratic blood feud. Hundreds of thousands die as a consequence of this, with the only object being Rob getting revenge, a crown and a few hostages exchanged. How can he reasonably imperil thousands of his subjects lives for the sake of his own family? In any other story, if a bunch of aristocrats did that it would be subject of immense criticism and condemnation. That’s like Blackadder where the people are dragged into a pointless war to die for the vanity and vain glory of a privileged class. It is morally repugnant to depict that as a romantic struggle between good and evil.

You seem to be viewing a late medieval based fantasy with a 21st century liberal view. In this fictional world i believe the execution of a lord paramount is good cause enough for a bloody civil war that would devastate the small folk and nobles alike. Ned was loved in the North and his execution (which was unjust in the eyes of northmen) would have made most nobles in the North want war.

In Westeros lots of nobles like and enjoy war, for its glory and gains. Even if Tywin was executed by the King on the Iron Throne (Aerys) the westerlander lords would've supported Kevan or Jamie in a war against the King. He was their Liege lord and although he wasnt loved in the west but more like feared and respected, his nobles would've still wanted to go to war for his death. 

Lord paramounts are Kings in all but name. If the french king executed the King of England, all the English nobles would want war for this dishonour. 

Its simple you execute my Liege lord and I rise up or revolt. You can see this happening when Robb executes Lord Rickard Karstark. A noble lord or an aristocrat wouldnt care if the King executed a fellow lord, but if the King were to execute his Liege lord and the heir were to call its banners for war, than the vassal lord would answer the call. 

How can he reasonably imperil thousands of his subjects lives for the sake of his own family? He is Lord. His word is law in the North, if the Lord of Winterfell wanted to war, than why not. Robert went to war for a women he only met once. The Young Dragon invaded Dorne and caused the death of thousands of his loyal subjects, and do you see anyone in Westeros complaining? He is seen as a war hero and a great King. When Edward III of England launched an invasion of France to claim its Throne, the nobles supported the ambitions of a King because they saw it as rightful cause. If I was a King in the medieval era and my neighbours were to send me an insult, Id go to war.

His family is everything in his land, as a Lord if he was to stand aside and let the execution of his father go unanswered, the northern lords would see him as a coward and lose respect for him. 

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I haven’t brought Tywin into this and why should I exactly. Does Rob become a worse person if Tywin is Mr Reasonable and his fathers son? The two aren’t related. Rob can still be criticised strongly enough without him being “as bad” as Tywin Lannister. If you want to compare Hitler to Mussolini then fair enough but Iam not really doing that.

"Robb is a monster who got what was coming to him."  That was you.  I'm not sure how else I, or anyone else, is supposed to take this.  Calling Robb a monster is idiotic, in an absolute and relative sense.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Explain how it is a marginal infraction to drag an entire nation into a war to avenge the death of one man? This is an aristocratic blood feud. Hundreds of thousands die as a consequence of this, with the only object being Rob getting revenge, a crown and a few hostages exchanged. How can he reasonably imperil thousands of his subjects lives for the sake of his own family? In any other story, if a bunch of aristocrats did that it would be subject of immense criticism and condemnation. That’s like Blackadder where the people are dragged into a pointless war to die for the vanity and vain glory of a privileged class. It is morally repugnant to depict that as a romantic struggle between good and evil.

Your argument, then, is that war is immoral?  In all cases?  Robb goes to war to separate himself and his kingdom from the legal jurisdiction of a government which has been murdering and oppressing his family, and his entire region, for decades.  From Aerys II through Joffrey, the Starks have seen their family members kidnapped and raped, burnt alive, imprisoned without trial, had their murder called for, and then imprisoned and murdered again.  And lets not forget, this isn't restricted to Robb's family; many of their bannermen have also suffered at the hands of these people.  Moreover, as we see Tywin is actively trying to undermine the Night's Watch and let Mance Rayder loose into the North, the smallfolk of the North have as much of a stake in this as do the nobles, since they're the ones who will be kidnapped or burnt out of their homes by the wildlings.  Robb is right to want independence from this kind of tyranny.  American colonists went to war and tens of thousands died because the colonists didn't like paying taxes and billeting British soldiers.  

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Those are Machiavellian criticisms of what Rob is doing wrong and how he could have won. They aren’t moral criticisms. You can make Machiavellian criticisms of Dany as well, but the text is far more weighted towards moral condemnation. It’s not “a mistake” to trust Mirri, it’s a moral tale in which one of the little people gets back at her. 

Um... no, it isn't.  Its a morality tale in that Dany needs to understand that by being party to an injustice, even ignorantly or unwillingly, has consequences.  Dany thinks she's doing Mirri Maz Duur a favor by rescuing her, without realizing that she, as a privileged member of Dothraki society, is partially responsible for the terrible things that happened in the first place.  It is part of what informs her later care for making sure that her actions are moral, and not just using the status quo as an excuse for what she does.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

A war to carve out an independent realm and conquer the Riverlands is a fundamental change to Westeros. It’s the biggest attempt to change the borders of Westeros since Aegons Conquest. Far more important than ending slavery in three cities at the edge of the world.

For someone so intent on imposing modern morals and geopolitics on these characters, your awfully dense about what constitutes real change.  To anyone except the Tullys and the Starks, the North forming an independent kingdom with the Riverlands is meaningless.  It's the same social stratification.  The same old bonds of vassalage and serfdom.

Whereas Dany is overthrowing the entire social order.  Look at the American South.  What is a bigger difference, that between the antebellum government and the CSA government, or the difference between the abolition of slavery and the legal rights of blacks being enshrined versus they're enslavement?  Obviously the latter was a more fundamental change to the social order.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

We don’t have his POV but we see his story through Cat. So there was plenty of opportunity and chances to bring up criticisms of “just war” and for him to meet a Mirri character. We don’t see this.

Right, because his forces aren't party to the same kind of mass atrocity committed by the Lannisters or the Dothraki.  In fact, in many cases, his subjects (e.g. Edmure) are actively involved in protecting the smallfolk at the expense of purely military aims.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The moral criticism of Dany begins almost from the first chapter, well before she gets to Slavers Bay. In Clash there’s a very revealing section where she reflects that she wants her realm to be a happy place filled with jolly people; “but first I must conquer”. To which we then see her later thinking that all she brings is dust and death in Storm of Swords. So the criticism is very clear cut. Dany is being criticised for using power and violence to set things right; a greater good mentality. Whether thats ending slavery or retaking Westeros is immaterial as the same thread runs through her story.

Really?  That's your takeaway?  I mean... you've missed all the core themes of these books.  Dany is not being criticized for using her power to set things right; she's being applauded for it, but GRRM is using her story to display the perils of how merely meaning well doesn't translate into a rejuvenation of the land, Fisher King-style.  Hammering out the policies involved and making them work is hard and requires tough compromise.  

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

My issue is that Rob and the Starks actions are not depicted in this manner. Carving out the North and Riverlands is using power and violence to in theory make the world right. Taking the Wildlings down to Winterfell is using power and violence to set the world to rights. What you’re saying is that these questions aren’t applicable or relevant to the Stark story. But by sidestepping them or pulling punches it’s basically accepting that these are just wars. If I am only asked to question if Danys war is just but never asked that of a Stark character then that is the text singling her out.

Well GRRM is, in general, writing for a smarter and more conscientious audience than you.  This particular criticism reflects more poorly on you than it does on GRRM.  Which is likely because Robb's story is a deconstruction of fantasy tropes in different ways than Dany's.  Robb is Aragorn - fated to win battles against all odds and become the king that was promised.  But he isn't the protagonist of this story, so he dies despite being essentially blameless.

And again, if you cannot understand that Robb is revolting against a very real, and very life-threatening, tyranny, then you need to do a reread.  And he isn't portrayed as flawless - he's often shown to have flaws.  What we see is that his war aims are just, but because we don't get a POV from him, we don't get his internal strugge.  If Dany were portrayed in the same way, we'd get an equally glowing review - the dragon queen, breaking chains and fighting to liberate the downtrodden.  As it is, it's more complex than that, as it surely is for Robb, but the author doesn't have time to hold your hand, so he's assuming you'll get that basic point and not ask him to outline every morally irresponsible thing Robb does.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

For the slavery point specifically George shows his hand in Tyrion’s POV when it’s revealed that, actually (despite all their actions contradicting this), the Slavers were interested in a peaceful political settlement and were bluffing about their military strength. They never believed they could beat Dany. Meaning Dany choosing war is being depicted as a grave mistake that will cost millions of needless lives. So in Winds we are going to have a situation where the Slavers get pulverised at Mereen and then Dany unleashes the Dothraki on them after they have been beaten and are probably going to be pleading mercy. Not to mention a massive escalation. There is almost certainly going to be heavy criticism of Dany in Winds for this.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA are you five years old?  Or just incapable of nuance?  Where the hell do you get this?  The whole point is that the slaver's have absolutely no interest in respecting Dany's prohibitions on slavery, and are going to maintain their hold on power and topple Dany's vision the moment they can.  We know the slaver's aren't interested in a peaceful political settlement - they're besieging the damn city!!!!  How do you not understand that?  If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, I'm not "interested in a peaceful settlement."  I'm mugging you, plain and simple, and the fact that you can get out of the situation without violence does not mean that you aren't justified in defending yourself.  

Your attitude is morally repugnant.  It implies that every victim is ultimately the cause of any violence done to them, because if they only gave in to their mugger's demands they would have gotten away without harm.

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You are basically saying Rob can’t be doing anything wrong because he isn’t Tywin

Again, if you don't speak English as a native language, I suggest you say so and ask for a simpler argument from me.  If you do, you should really, really go back elementary school, because your reading comprehension is that of a third grader.  I have said the exact opposite of this; it is you who is drawing a moral equivalence between Robb and Tywin (again, Robb is a "monster" in your words).

Robb deserves criticism.  He is engaged in a war which costs innocent lives.  He makes mistakes which cost more.  He does things that aren't ethically praiseworthy, necessarily.  But one must contextualize these actions - war is bad in general, but in certain circumstances is an acceptable evil.  I am saying that we should judge Robb as a character relative to his peers.  No one is without sin or fault, but Robb is a living saint compared to Tywin or Gregor Clegane, or to a lesser degree someone like Renly Baratheon.

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

If you think one hotheaded Northern Lord killing a few people is George adding shades of grey to the North then we have very different notions of morally grey. He’s depicted as a rogue element who defies Robs express command. When, implicitly, the very act of bringing 20k men into the Riverlands would kill far more people than one thick skulled Northern Lord. George sidesteps the real moral problem with Robs actions entirely. The North and Rob are whitewashed and criticism is not as pointed and direct as it is with Dany. 

Different things are being criticized.  Dany is praised for the reasons she goes to war.  And with good reason; she's a liberator, she cares about her "children", she is genuinely trying to do good.  If you've missed that, you're an idiot.  GRRM supports her crusade in Slavers Bay, wholeheartedly.  The point being made in her storyline is that conquering and governing are not the same thing.  We see shades of this when Robb has to execute Rickard Karstark, or when he talks about winning battles but losing the war.  Dany conquers all, but has to deal with how to hold on to her principles while governing in a fair manner, a dilemma I'm sure even modern day politicians could reflect on.  Since we don't get Robb's thoughts, we can't hear about how he feels about the many ethical compromises that come with ruling - we're only supposed to see him as the Young Wolf, the legend who never loses a battle, who is an inspiration to those Northern lords who oppose the Bolton/Frey/Lannister bloc and who plot to return the Starks to power.

Your inability to grasp this is... disappointing.  There is a saying.  If you look around a crowded room and can't spot the idiot, it's probably you.  If you're reading these books and thinking "wow, the author is taking a really hamfisted approach to comparing these two characters," then it's probably you not understanding it, and not the author being a nincompoop.

[Tyrion1991]

4 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

You seem to be viewing a late medieval based fantasy with a 21st century liberal view. In this fictional world i believe the execution of a lord paramount is good cause enough for a bloody civil war that would devastate the small folk and nobles alike. Ned was loved in the North and his execution (which was unjust in the eyes of northmen) would have made most nobles in the North want war.

In Westeros lots of nobles like and enjoy war, for its glory and gains. Even if Tywin was executed by the King on the Iron Throne (Aerys) the westerlander lords would've supported Kevan or Jamie in a war against the King. He was their Liege lord and although he wasnt loved in the west but more like feared and respected, his nobles would've still wanted to go to war for his death. 

Lord paramounts are Kings in all but name. If the french king executed the King of England, all the English nobles would want war for this dishonour. 

Its simple you execute my Liege lord and I rise up or revolt. You can see this happening when Robb executes Lord Rickard Karstark. A noble lord or an aristocrat wouldnt care if the King executed a fellow lord, but if the King were to execute his Liege lord and the heir were to call its banners for war, than the vassal lord would answer the call. 

How can he reasonably imperil thousands of his subjects lives for the sake of his own family? He is Lord. His word is law in the North, if the Lord of Winterfell wanted to war, than why not. Robert went to war for a women he only met once. The Young Dragon invaded Dorne and caused the death of thousands of his loyal subjects, and do you see anyone in Westeros complaining? He is seen as a war hero and a great King. When Edward III of England launched an invasion of France to claim its Throne, the nobles supported the ambitions of a King because they saw it as rightful cause. If I was a King in the medieval era and my neighbours were to send me an insult, Id go to war.

His family is everything in his land, as a Lord if he was to stand aside and let the execution of his father go unanswered, the northern lords would see him as a coward and lose respect for him. 

 

Because Winter is Coming. The Starks should all be very aware that their country is incredibly poor and that any disruption to the harvest (much less a direct assault on the grain stores) would cause a calamitous winter famine. Mobilising 20k men and their horses on campaign would do the trick. Without this issue, maybe you could argue that fighting a war isn’t reckless and callous. But I just don’t see that. 

Rob has to have sat there and thought “there might be hardship in the north, but I have to save my father and sisters”. Now, I doubt he’s like Tywin and saying it’s a good thing to cull the surplus population. But he certainly made that decision, knowingly or not. 

Those circumstances are drastically different to the Middle Ages. No Russian Boyar had to contend with a ten year winter.  Iam not even sure how the North is habitable to be perfectly honest. It shows just how much of a risk he took in going to war.

Because if we were to pull moral relativism then we wouldn’t be able to judge Tywin, the Mountain or the Dothraki. If it just comes down to “men of their times” doing “what needs to be done” and I think the series very much encourages you to consider the morality of what most of the characters do. Just not House Stark because they’re perfect.

So I think George choosing not to draw our attention to that and muddying the waters by having the North invaded and the war ending before winter really alters our perceptions of Rob. Had the war continued into winter and the inevitable famine had occurred with Rob refusing to make concessions then I don’t think people would be singing his praises as the martyred Wolf King. At what point does he become a stubborn fool who is throwing the lives of his people away?

It’s funny you bring up Edward the Third because that’s exactly what happens during his reign. He has some great success initially. But then his wars bankrupt the realm, he loses all his gains, there’s famine and plague. So he probably shouldn’t have been going to war and it certainly at least exacerbated these issues.

[The Young Maester]

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because Winter is Coming. The Starks should all be very aware that their country is incredibly poor and that any disruption to the harvest (much less a direct assault on the grain stores) would cause a calamitous winter famine. Mobilising 20k men and their horses on campaign would do the trick. Without this issue, maybe you could argue that fighting a war isn’t reckless and callous. But I just don’t see that. 

Rob has to have sat there and thought “there might be hardship in the north, but I have to save my father and sisters”. Now, I doubt he’s like Tywin and saying it’s a good thing to cull the surplus population. But he certainly made that decision, knowingly or not. 

Well when your father and Lord is arrested, you need to raise an army as a show of strength and emphasis that you want your daddy back or we shall bring war to your lands. Robb never anticipated Ned being executed, only an idiot of a King would have executed a Great Lord.

Robb had a plan, and it was a good plan. His plan was to obviously split his forces and send the foot towards Tywin to fool the Mighty Tywin, whilst his cavalry crosses the twins and went and captured the fool Jamie. Although Jamie was an impatient and sometimes an incompetent commander he was still Tywin's Golden son and Cersei's favourite lover. Capturing Jamie allows him to offer a prisoner exchange for Ned stark whilst also settling a peace between their houses. However this plan was butchered when Ned was executed and Robb was declared King by the GreatJon, and to make matters worst, the riverlords also declared him King which made the situation worst because now Robb has to defend the riverlands from teh lannisters.

What do you expect a naive boy in his position would do? Refuse the kingship and tell the riverlords that he came here just to rescue his fathers and that he will now return north to prepare for the coming winter whilst the riverlands are left at the hands of Tywin. Would you have stood aside whilst your father was executed by a boy king. 

34 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Those circumstances are drastically different to the Middle Ages. No Russian Boyar had to contend with a ten year winter.  Iam not even sure how the North is habitable to be perfectly honest. It shows just how much of a risk he took in going to war.

These circumstances are not different to the middle ages, when a war has to be fought than off to war you go. You get a 10 year winter? so what you also get a 10 year summer. Ten year winters are rare, but at the same time you get a glorious 10 year summer in which you can farm and store your harvests throughout the summer. The North is habitable under these conditions, since supposedly these reserves of food are enough to survive throughout winter. 

39 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Because if we were to pull moral relativism then we wouldn’t be able to judge Tywin, the Mountain or the Dothraki. If it just comes down to “men of their times” doing “what needs to be done” and I think the series very much encourages you to consider the morality of what most of the characters do. Just not House Stark because they’re perfect.

Oh no doubt that we use our world realism to judge the action of these characters, but we also put in a mixture of the morality of this fictional world, to help us also understand their actions. But when you call Northmen racist for thinking themselves better than southerners. Well its pretty explainable by itself just how hard you are trying to use 21st century liberal views. Northmen, wildlings, dornish, stormlanders, essosi. They are all racists in your eyes because each of these races hate the other race. You have the stormlander and reachmen whom see the Dornish as dishonourable people and therefore think that they have more honour than the snakes and savages that raid their lands. You've got the rest of the south that see northmen as savages and therefore they think that their ways are better than their northern neighbours. You've got the targaryens whom think themselves above gods. In this world everyone thinks that they are better than the other. 

49 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 So I think George choosing not to draw our attention to that and muddying the waters by having the North invaded and the war ending before winter really alters our perceptions of Rob. Had the war continued into winter and the inevitable famine had occurred with Rob refusing to make concessions then I don’t think people would be singing his praises as the martyred Wolf King. At what point does he become a stubborn fool who is throwing the lives of his people away?

Robb was created for one purpose, and that was to die in a war. George wanted Robbs death to cause a power struggle in the North between competing factions. 

In ASOS Robb all but abandoned the riverlands. When he returned north he would face the issues of food, how would he have dealt with that? we  will never know, because it wasent part of the plot. And had he been facing a famine, it wouldn't had mattered because by than the Others would have invaded. 

55 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 It’s funny you bring up Edward the Third because that’s exactly what happens during his reign. He has some great success initially. But then his wars bankrupt the realm, he loses all his gains, there’s famine and plague. So he probably shouldn’t have been going to war and it certainly at least exacerbated these issues.

And still, he went to war with France and no one complained. That famine during his reign was caused by natural causes, and it happened a good 20 years before the hundreds year war even began. The black plague didn't break out because of his war. The bankruptcy was the only thing related to his war. And still even through bankruptcy he managed to beat the french in one of the most famous battles of the hundred years war and also  signed a truce whilst gaining a kings ransom to fill the treasury.