What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

[867-5309]

On 11/2/2019 at 1:03 PM, DarkLord said:

 

Jon would have slept with Jeyne if he had wanted to.  Oaths and vows have never prevented Jon from doing what he truly wanted to do.  He lacked the character and the discipline to do the job he was elected to do.  Robb was broken from the beginning.  He was going to war and it didn't matter that his father had already confessed.  That is irresponsible to drag thousands of innocents to kill other innocents for the benefit of one man who already confessed to a crime.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

Jon would have slept with Jeyne if he had wanted to.  Oaths and vows have never prevented Jon from doing what he truly wanted to do.  He lacked the character and the discipline to do the job he was elected to do.  Robb was broken from the beginning.  He was going to war and it didn't matter that his father had already confessed.  That is irresponsible to drag thousands of innocents to kill other innocents for the benefit of one man who already confessed to a crime.

One man who confessed to a crime he didn’t commit. One man who was unjustly being held prisoner because politics and intrigue and a queen who had committed the worst of treasons by having her husband the king killed cowardly. And his son(s) and family in general knew he hadn’t because they know him. Ned brought them up right, and instilled in them the qualities he thought (correctly) were important. 

Seriuosly, though, I don’t even know why I bother replying to these inane blind hate posts. I should just stick to reading them... after all, the comedy relief is awesome!

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

Jon would have slept with Jeyne if he had wanted to.  Oaths and vows have never prevented Jon from doing what he truly wanted to do.  He lacked the character and the discipline to do the job he was elected to do.  Robb was broken from the beginning.  He was going to war and it didn't matter that his father had already confessed.  That is irresponsible to drag thousands of innocents to kill other innocents for the benefit of one man who already confessed to a crime.

Even in today's world there are plenty of false confessions. A confession means almost nothing without evidence to back it up. Every person that knew Ned knew it was highly unlikely he did what he was accused of. 

Oaths & vows have prevented Jon from doing plenty of things he wanted to. He likely wanted to stay with Ygritte but he didn't because of the oath he took. He very much wanted to have Winterfell but didn't accept Stannis' repeated offers for it because of the oath he took. He wanted to rescue Arya immediately upon hearing she was married off to Ramsay but didn't because of the oath he took. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Seriuosly, though, I don’t even know why I bother replying to these inane blind hate posts. I should just stick to reading them... after all, the comedy relief is awesome!

I was just thinking the same thing! I guess I'm hoping one day, one of them will come with a good argument for their stance or possibly read the book again & see their statements are false. It's likely not going to happen but I try. 

On a side note I'm never 100% sure these people aren't all the same person with different screen names just trolling the forums. It's hard for me to believe more than one or two people truly believe this crap. 

[frenin]

5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

The North is neither a nation or state. It’s a feudal kingdom with a hierarchy in which each person has to answer to someone. They don’t have organised health care systems, school systems, or the justice department. 
 

Every Kingdom is feudal, that doesn't mean they could not developed a sense of nationalism, Dorne don't have those things either and yet there is no kingdom as nationalist as them, feudal kingdoms can also be nations and states, you only have to look France and England during the Hundred years war.

The North is nation in every sense of the word.

Quote

A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Nation

Dictionary: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I was just thinking the same thing! I guess I'm hoping one day, one of them will come with a good argument for their stance or possibly read the book again & see their statements are false. It's likely not going to happen but I try. 

On a side note I'm never 100% sure these people aren't all the same person with different screen names just trolling the forums. It's hard for me to believe more than one or two people truly believe this crap. 

It’s actually fucking hilarious. “Yeah, I’d rather come across as someone who hasn’t read the books or, much worse, someone who has read them but didn’t understand any of it”, and it’s all because “boohoo I hate Jon/the Starks”. 

Yup, so,e folks are truly, truly going to hate Winds. And I’m gonna laugh my arse off.

[The Young Maester]

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Every Kingdom is feudal, that doesn't mean they could not developed a sense of nationalism, Dorne don't have those things either and yet there is no kingdom as nationalist as them,

The North is nation in every sense of the word.

Nation

Dictionary: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

The North is quite nationalistic but that’s due to its cultural ties between its people. It’s just a kingdom in which everyone follows the same tradition and cultures. But I still wouldn’t call it a nation since nations would be more modern kingdoms/countries. Renaissance era kingdoms could be referred to as nations since they’d have a more modern and centralised system. 

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

One man who confessed to a crime he didn’t commit. One man who was unjustly being held prisoner because politics and intrigue and a queen who had committed the worst of treasons by having her husband the king killed cowardly. And his son(s) and family in general knew he hadn’t because they know him. Ned brought them up right, and instilled in them the qualities he thought (correctly) were important. 

Seriuosly, though, I don’t even know why I bother replying to these inane blind hate posts. I should just stick to reading them... after all, the comedy relief is awesome!

That we know Ned is innocent doesn't change the fact that he confessed to treason and condemned himself. He lost face and honor, and even if Robb and Cat had saved him it would not have restored his honor. He wouldn't have been able to look at himself in the mirror, and his lords would have laughed at him in their cups.

And his family did not know he was innocent of the charges. They believed he was, but they could not know for a fact because they weren't there nor in close contact with him when he made his calls.

And while he did not do the crimes they accused him of, he did betray King Robert on his deathbed. He kept the truth about Cersei from him, he forged his last will, he pretended he would serve Joffrey as Lord Regent and Protector, he tried to get the Small Council to confirm as the regent of a false king, and to bribe the City Watch to arrest the queen and her children ... all actions that either are treason or borderline treason. Doesn't make Ned worse than Cersei, but definitely not an innocent man.

And it is hilarious to believe saving 'brave Ned' is worth it get thousands of people killed and throw a continent into war. Just as it is wrong to have the Northmen defend the Riverlanders (which they only do because two noble people married each other - were that not the case they wouldn't give a damn, and rightfully so).

3 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

The North is quite nationalistic but that’s due to its cultural ties between its people. It’s just a kingdom in which everyone follows the same tradition and cultures. But I still wouldn’t call it a nation since nations would be more modern kingdoms/countries. Renaissance era kingdoms could be referred to as nations since they’d have a more modern and centralised system. 

The North is actually the least homogenous of the Seven Kingdoms - there are many different peoples there - there are the crannogmen, the clansmen, and Skagosi who are all culturally distinct, don't interact with outsiders, and are not treated equally by other Northmen. Then there are the Manderly Andal people, set apart by religion, the Bear Islanders, set apart by customs (female warriors). Then come the various lands of the greater houses in the North all of which would have their own traditions and customs which would set them apart from the others - those might be less distinct than the others, but the people in the world would notice them. The only thing they have in common is that they bend the knee to Winterfell - but that's not the same as them having a positive identity as 'Northmen' - that would be a term used by outsiders describing them, not they describing them themselves. If they had a national identity of sorts they would have long done away with feudal nonsense - because it is the identification with your house and local lord that prevents a proper state from developing. You cannot have both feudalism as presented in Westeros and a proper nation state.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

we know Ned is innocent doesn't change the fact that he confessed to treason and condemned himself. He lost face and honor, and even if Robb and Cat had saved him it would not have restored his honor. He wouldn't have been able to look at himself in the mirror, and his lords would have laughed at him in their cups.

And his family did not know he was innocent of the charges. They believed he was, but they could not know for a fact because they weren't there nor in close contact with him when he made his calls

Granted, no one knew absolutely but every person that knew Ned knew it was very unlikely. They probably felt they knew - especially Robb & Cat who knew Ned very well. 

I don't think he wouldn't have been able to look himself in the mirror, he confessed to save his daughter. If there is an honorable reason to confess to something you didn't do that's it. 

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

while he did not do the crimes they accused him of, he did betray King Robert on his deathbed. He kept the truth about Cersei from him, he forged his last will, he pretended he would serve Joffrey as Lord Regent and Protector, he tried to get the Small Council to confirm as the regent of a false king, and to bribe the City Watch to arrest the queen and her children ... all actions that either are treason or borderline treason. Doesn't make Ned worse than Cersei, but definitely not an innocent man

I think betrayed is too harsh of a word for what Ned did. He saved his friend from the hurtful, harmful truth. Was it right? Probably not but it wasn't betrayal IMO. 

Forged is too much also I think. He didn't write verbatim what Robert said but it meant the same thing - only Robert believed his true heir to be Joffrey, while Ned knew otherwise. I don't think there was much for anyone to gain at this point if Ned had told the truth. He likely would have gotten Cersei & her children killed & that is something he wouldn't be able to look him self in the mirror over. 

He tried to get the city watch to arrest the false Queen & her bastard children. The Queen was on the wrong side of the law here, not Ned.

I can definitely see where some of his actions are borderline treason but Ned is not an evil man, nor were his actions out of malice. Doesn't make him always right but it does make it difficult to talk to the people that hate the Starks blindly & insist everything anyone of them have done is evil, wrong, & sadistic. 

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is hilarious to believe saving 'brave Ned' is worth it get thousands of people killed and throw a continent into war. Just as it is wrong to have the Northmen defend the Riverlanders (which they only do because two noble people married each other - were that not the case they wouldn't give a damn, and rightfully so).

But it wasn't just about saving Ned. Of course Robb & Cat & probably some of the Lords hoped to save Ned but it is more about rebelling against an unjust, illegal, tyrant Queen. 

I don't understand why it's wrong for a Northmen to defend the Riverlands? 

[frenin]

11 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

The North is quite nationalistic but that’s due to its cultural ties between its people. It’s just a kingdom in which everyone follows the same tradition and cultures. But I still wouldn’t call it a nation since nations would be more modern kingdoms/countries. Renaissance era kingdoms could be referred to as nations since they’d have a more modern and centralised system. 

No, you're talking about modern states, the term nation is more a cultural thing.

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The North is actually the least homogenous of the Seven Kingdoms - there are many different peoples there - there are the crannogmen, the clansmen, and Skagosi who are all culturally distinct, don't interact with outsiders, and are not treated equally by other Northmen. Then there are the Manderly Andal people, set apart by religion, the Bear Islanders, set apart by customs (female warriors). Then come the various lands of the greater houses in the North all of which would have their own traditions and customs which would set them apart from the others - those might be less distinct than the others, but the people in the world would notice them. The only thing they have in common is that they bend the knee to Winterfell - but that's not the same as them having a positive identity as 'Northmen' - that would be a term used by outsiders describing them, not they describing them themselves. If they had a national identity of sorts they would have long done away with feudal nonsense - because it is the identification with your house and local lord that prevents a proper state from developing. You cannot have both feudalism as presented in Westeros and a proper nation state.

You're confusing regionalism with nationalism, inside of the nations, people can have differents customs, sort of because being a she bear don't quatify, but you must have the common basics and all the North has it, even the Andals have it.

Nationalism don't always have conflict with feudalism and we indeed see that many northmen identify themselves as northmen, hell Greatjon's speech reeks nationalism.

The Dornish are a nation, they see themselves as dornish and feudalism is still going on there, to the point that the Yronwoods get their people to join 3 Blackfyre rebellions.

The North, but Skagos but tbf they are like the Sistermen there, have been ruled as one people for thousands of years, they shared a common history, even the Manderlys share a common histoty by this point,  theyshare a common culture and most of them share the same ethnicity, they are a nation

 

Nation: A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

The North is a nation in every sense of the word, the only ethnic fluctuation there are the Manderlys and they have been around for a thousand years!!! That's longer than actual modern nationalist states, the idea that in a thousand years, the Manderlys and the likes have not adapt their culture to the North or the North have nt learnt to respect their difference makes literally no sense. The North have the same culture, from thhe Manderlys to the Clansmen, follow the same ancestral laws and  have the same traditions, that's not to say that each region can't have their pwn particularities but that happens always, it's happening now and that don't mean they are not nation.

 

This is what happened when the North was not united by the Starks.

 

After the defeat of the Boltons, the last of their Northern rivals, the greatest threats to the dominion of House Stark came by sea. The northern boundary of the Stark domains was protected by the Wall and the men of the Night’s Watch, whilst to the south, the only way through the swamps of the Neck passed below the ruined towers and sinking walls of the great fortress called Moat Cailin. Even when the Marsh Kings held the Moat, their crannogmen stood staunch against any invaders from the south, allying with the Barrow Kings, Red Kings, and Kings of Winter as need be to turn back any southron lord who sought to attack the North. And once King Rickard Stark added the Neck to his domain, Moat Cailin proved even more imposing—a bulwark against the powers of the south. Few sought to push past it, and the histories say that none ever succeeded.

 

Even before the North was truly one Kingdom, every northener had a sense of nationalism that made them make common cause with their rivals to throw off invaders, that's something that didn't even happen with the pre Nymeria Dorne,is quite clear that the North, the Iron Islands and Dorne are all nations, one could say that the Vale also were one, of all the southern kingdoms theirs were the ones that remained the same from most time, whereas the Reach, the West, the Stormlands and the Riverlands changed a lot trough time.

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Granted, no one knew absolutely but every person that knew Ned knew it was very unlikely. They probably felt they knew - especially Robb & Cat who knew Ned very well. 

Stannis also knows Cersei very well and mistakenly believes she killed Jon Arryn. You can be mistaken. The reason why Robb calls the banners is not because he knows or believes his father is innocent, he does so because his noble ego commands he do that. This is all about keeping face and projecting strength, not to do the right thing.

And it gets much worse due to the fact that the common enemy is making his preparations beyond the Wall.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think he wouldn't have been able to look himself in the mirror, he confessed to save his daughter. If there is an honorable reason to confess to something you didn't do that's it.

We are not with Ned when he makes the call to shit on everything he stands for. We don't know. But we can say that whatever he stood for publicly would be destroyed had ever returned alive back North. People would have pitied him, and that's the death of a lord in the North.

The right way to deal with threats to female family members by noble standards is (apparently) to ignore those completely - like Robb did repeatedly with the threats to his sisters.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think betrayed is too harsh of a word for what Ned did. He saved his friend from the hurtful, harmful truth. Was it right? Probably not but it wasn't betrayal IMO. 

Ned saved his friend some grief, but he betrayed his king. Honor and loyalty demanded that he tell the truth. Robert could have given commands how to deal with Cersei and the children. He could have named an heir rather than having Ned alone insisting it must be Stannis (Robert may have not agreed; he could have favored Renly or he could have even decided to crown Joffrey or Tommen despite their parentage - or he could have legitimized Edric Storm or Mya Stone or some other bastard).

It was Ned's duty to at least inquire what his dying monarch wanted him to do now that the kingdom was about to come crushing down.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Forged is too much also I think. He didn't write verbatim what Robert said but it meant the same thing - only Robert believed his true heir to be Joffrey, while Ned knew otherwise. I don't think there was much for anyone to gain at this point if Ned had told the truth. He likely would have gotten Cersei & her children killed & that is something he wouldn't be able to look him self in the mirror over.

Robert said Joffrey was his heir and that he wanted Ned to serve him as Lord Regent and Protector - if he had been of the opinion Stannis was his heir he would have never named a Lord Regent and Protector because only a minor king would need one. As I said, Ned is scheming there. He uses Robert's wish that he serve as regent for minor Joffrey to get into a position where he can actually depose the king he is supposed to serve as regent. That is treason in my opinion, you could also call it 'underhanded plotting' or something along those lines if you like that better, but bottom line is that Ned keeps things from Robert and the council that would undo the king's last will and prevent him from even becoming regent.

His duty would have been to tell the truth as he saw it at once. First to Robert and then, of course, also to the Small Council.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He tried to get the city watch to arrest the false Queen & her bastard children. The Queen was on the wrong side of the law here, not Ned.

While Robert had not condemned Cersei she was the queen. And her son Joffrey was the king's heir. Had Ned told Robert this may have changed, but he did not.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I can definitely see where some of his actions are borderline treason but Ned is not an evil man, nor were his actions out of malice. Doesn't make him always right but it does make it difficult to talk to the people that hate the Starks blindly & insist everything anyone of them have done is evil, wrong, & sadistic. 

Nobody said he was evil. But good men can also commit treason. We are talking politics and legal issues, not morals.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But it wasn't just about saving Ned. Of course Robb & Cat & probably some of the Lords hoped to save Ned but it is more about rebelling against an unjust, illegal, tyrant Queen.

Robb rebels only because Ned is imprisoned. Cersei has not done anything tyrannical at that point. Robb is actually attacking her and the Iron Throne, not the other way around.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't understand why it's wrong for a Northmen to defend the Riverlands? 

I meant that the average Northman - the peasant - has no incentive to die to defend of free Riverrun. Just as the peasants in the Riverlands have no reason to ever come north to defend the women of the Umbers against the wildling raiders. The only reason the Northmen are marching south is because of noble egos and pissing contests and marriage ties. That should (and does) not matter to the common people.

Which is one of the main reasons why the entire War of the Five Kings is completely pointless.

[Nagini's Neville]

Wow, I'm really surprised how hard some of you guys are on Robb and Jon. I always kind of felt like they were almost to "perfect" for boys their age. And that was a reason I had problems connecting with them.I questioned how realistic they really are. I mean they are just 14 when the story starts. Robb is basically an extremely successful warlord at 15 (never loosing a battle), with no previous military experiences. He is not allowed to fight Joff with steal a year prior and then off to war he goes as the lord. And Jon climbs the ladder at the night watch as a protege immediately. Every competent and important member regarding him immediately as someone special and capable. They are very competent for their age and I'd actually would have liked to see them struggle a bit more. The mistakes they make, just show that they are human and ultimately actually still too young for their "jobs". 

It always baffled me how Robb, on the way to the Red wedding laied out, what seemed to be a very competent battle strategy to his men, but did not think about asking Walder for food and drink and had to be reminded by Cat- that just shows to me how young he really still is at this point. Being very well educated about all things concerning battle and quite brave, but still young and naive in other regards.

Still I think the mistakes Robb and Jon made are ones, that easily could have been done by adult men as well. (Jeyne maybe not so easily- guess it depends on the man- most probably just wouldn't have married her)

I feel like they are almost to perfect, I really would have liked to see them struggle more with combat skills or whatever, seeing them overcome internal obstacles more. (Getting scared shitless for once f.e.. But no, Jon and Robb are always prepared to die, if it's only in an honorable way.) But I feel like most of the obstacles came from the outside, not really enough from lack of competence. 

But I guess Ned educated them really well and most of it happened off page.

I feel like in general readers are very hard on characters, that are children/or still very young. Imo that's what makes the story so intriguing and raises the stakes, that those kids are forced into very adult situations(f.e. war and marriage) and they basically have to adapt and learn how to deal with it and have to grow up over night- but that does not mean, that they magically have the maturity of a person, that is a lot older than them.

That's why I f.e. don't think it's fair to compare R+J to someone like Tyrion, who has 10 years on them, and if he did do nothing else with his time, he at least read a whole lot of books and his brain had time to develop (frontal lope isn't fully developed until about 25)

That's also why liked Sansa right from the start. I thought, my god, she is just like I was at 11, she was so realistic and had a lot of problems and difficulties adapting. Ppl might regard her as annoying, but I also think, that everyone, who truly thinks they would have been so much "wiser, smarter, less self-centered" under the same circumstances at that age, suffers a bit from hubris. And just having forgotten, what it's really like to be a child. And the same goes for Robb and Jon. GRRM after all is famous for writing psychologically accurate/realistic characters or at least he attaches a lot of importance to that, and so imo we are also free also judge them as such.

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis also knows Cersei very well and mistakenly believes she killed Jon Arryn. You can be mistaken

Yeah, absolutely. 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

reason why Robb calls the banners is not because he knows or believes his father is innocent, he does so because his noble ego commands he do that. This is all about keeping face and projecting strength, not to do the right thing

I don't recall getting Robb's reasons but I would imagine it was a mixture of loving his father & wanting to save him, in part because he believes him to be innocent, but also to keep face. Had he done nothing it could have done damage to the North's reputation - something that could have been devastating considering the predicament his father was currently in. 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned saved his friend some grief, but he betrayed his king. Honor and loyalty demanded that he tell the truth. Robert could have given commands how to deal with Cersei and the children. He could have named an heir rather than having Ned alone insisting it must be Stannis (Robert may have not agreed; he could have favored Renly or he could have even decided to crown Joffrey or Tommen despite their parentage - or he could have legitimized Edric Storm or Mya Stone or some other bastard).

It was Ned's duty to at least inquire what his dying monarch wanted him to do now that the kingdom was about to come crushing down.

Quote

Forged is too much also I think. He didn't write verbatim what Robert said but it meant the same thing - only Robert believed his true heir to be Joffrey, while Ned knew otherwise. I don't think there was much for anyone to gain at this point if Ned had told the truth. He likely would have gotten Cersei & her children killed & that is something he wouldn't be able to look him self in the mirror over.

Robert said Joffrey was his heir and that he wanted Ned to serve him as Lord Regent and Protector - if he had been of the opinion Stannis was his heir he would have never named a Lord Regent and Protector because only a minor king would need one. As I said, Ned is scheming there. He uses Robert's wish that he serve as regent for minor Joffrey to get into a position where he can actually depose the king he is supposed to serve as regent. That is treason in my opinion, you could also call it 'underhanded plotting' or something along those lines if you like that better, but bottom line is that Ned keeps things from Robert and the council that would undo the king's last will and prevent him from even becoming regent.

His duty would have been to tell the truth as he saw it at once. First to Robert and then, of course, also to the Small Council.

I agree with all of this. He should have done this but I understand why he didn't. 

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

said he was evil. But good men can also commit treason. We are talking politics and legal issues, not morals

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you with those statements but the people who do call the Starks evil. It's a blind hate & is impossible to reason with. 

In all fairness though I'm usually talking about morals. They are much more important to me when considering someone's worth than the legality of the issue. 

Anything that the King says or orders is technically legal, no matter how bad or wrong that King might be. That doesn't make what he says or commands right or good. I know you understand this, I'm just explaining myself here. 

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb rebels only because Ned is imprisoned. Cersei has not done anything tyrannical at that point. Robb is actually attacking her and the Iron Throne, not the other way around.

I know we are kind of going in circles with this so maybe we just have to agree to disagree but Ned being wrongfully imprisoned is a tyrannical act by Cersei & the simple fact that she is ruling the realm as Queen regent when the child she is regent to is not the King's child means she is breaking the law. Granted, Robb does what he does not knowing this, but we know it. We know Cersei nor her children have any rightful claim to the Iron Throne & any command given by her under those pretenses should be null & void. 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

meant that the average Northman - the peasant - has no incentive to die to defend of free Riverrun. Just as the peasants in the Riverlands have no reason to ever come north to defend the women of the Umbers against the wildling raiders. The only reason the Northmen are marching south is because of noble egos and pissing contests and marriage ties. That should (and does) not matter to the common people

Wouldn't the marriage typically be enough for the other party to take up arms to defend them? It's kind of the point of political marriages, to make those alliances. 

None of it matters to the common people. They don't care much who the King is or probably who their Lord is so long as they are left in peace. Unfortunately they are always the ones to suffer the most. This isn't a fault of Robb's or Ned's or the Northmen defending RR or vice versa though. It's the fault of the system. Granted it is the Noble Lord's & Ladies that are upholding this system so some blame lies with them collectively, but it does not lie solely at Robb's feet 

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is one of the main reasons why the entire War of the Five Kings is completely pointless

Well, yeah. Not to mention pretty much nothing changed. The Lannisters still rule & the Starks certainly didn't get the justice or vengeance they sought. 

[divica]

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said he was evil. But good men can also commit treason. We are talking politics and legal issues, not morals.

Ned acted as if it was his right to choose the fate of cersei and her kids. Even if the reader simpathises with not killing children, lying to his friend and robbing him of the possibility to apply his justice to his wife is evil. Ned isn t the king and he wasn t the man betrayed who had to raise bastards thinking they were his children. He has no right to decide the fate of robert's familly for him...

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb rebels only because Ned is imprisoned. Cersei has not done anything tyrannical at that point. Robb is actually attacking her and the Iron Throne, not the other way around.

I think how easy the northmen turned their back on ned's oaths of fealty to the new monarchs is an early indication that the north isn t such a nice place. I don t remember when they receive stannis information about the children being bastards. But as far as I remember they have no proof that the lannisters are lying. They don t care about finding out if ned did something wrong or in supporting stannis who was the rightful heir. They jusr decided to be independent...

[divica]

9 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I know we are kind of going in circles with this so maybe we just have to agree to disagree but Ned being wrongfully imprisoned is a tyrannical act by Cersei & the simple fact that she is ruling the realm as Queen regent when the child she is regent to is not the King's child means she is breaking the law. Granted, Robb does what he does not knowing this, but we know it. We know Cersei nor her children have any rightful claim to the Iron Throne & any command given by her under those pretenses should be null & void

But robb not knowing any of this makes him and his lords assholes. I completly agree that when he hears that his father is a prisoner he needs to cal his banners. But to rebel and declare himself king? He has no good reason to do this. As far as he know his father confessed to treason and then there is stannis who is the rightfull king if he believes ned is innocent...

As a matter of fact I believe if jon was in robb's position he would have supported stannis. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

9 hours ago, divica said:

But robb not knowing any of this makes him and his lords assholes. I completly agree that when he hears that his father is a prisoner he needs to cal his banners. But to rebel and declare himself king? He has no good reason to do this. As far as he know his father confessed to treason and then there is stannis who is the rightfull king if he believes ned is innocent...

If you agree it was right to call his banners when he found out his father was imprisoned what do you presume he do with them after calling them if not rebel? He also did not declare himself King, the northerns declared him KitN. 

Also if he doesn't know about Cersei & the children, which I agree, then he doesn't know Stannis is the rightful King so he has no reason to support his claim. Robb wasn't being called King of the realm, only of the North. If the North is strong enough to separate themselves from the rest of the realm they have every right to do so. Unfortunately they weren't strong enough, or rather they might have been but too many mistakes were made. 

9 hours ago, divica said:

a matter of fact I believe if jon was in robb's position he would have supported stannis

If, as we have agreed, Robb didn't know Joffrey, Tommen, & Myrcella were bastards, & thus Jon in Robb's position wouldn't have known either, what in the world would make either of them support Stannis' claim to the throne? 

[divica]

29 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If you agree it was right to call his banners when he found out his father was imprisoned what do you presume he do with them after calling them if not rebel? He also did not declare himself King, the northerns declared him KitN. 

Also if he doesn't know about Cersei & the children, which I agree, then he doesn't know Stannis is the rightful King so he has no reason to support his claim. Robb wasn't being called King of the realm, only of the North. If the North is strong enough to separate themselves from the rest of the realm they have every right to do so. Unfortunately they weren't strong enough, or rather they might have been but too many mistakes were made. 

First I am not sure about when they learned the kids might be bastards, but the fact remains that they don t have any proof that ned isn t guilty. Robb had to go to KL with a show of force and learn what happened before he accepted kingship. Then the north is sworn to robert… They break their vow to follow robert's heir without a good reason!

While I agree that robb had to call his banners and put pressure on the crown to release his father and sisters the moment he lets his lords declare him king he loses the moral high ground… Having power to be independent doesn t mean it is the right thing to do at the moment...What would you be saying if the boltons declared themselves independent and marched on winterfell?

Hell, what did he expect to happen to his familly in KL when he decides to be KITN and starts marching to KL? Did he really expect that whoever is king will just accept the north's Independence? That a northern army south of the neck won t eventually be defeated?

Robb was a brilliant general but he was an awfull potician and leader. Almost all of his decisions outside of battle backfired and a lot of people he trusted were incompetent or betrayed him...

[frenin]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Which is one of the main reasons why the entire War of the Five Kings is completely pointless.

The only wars that weren't entirely pointless wars were the War's of conquest, insofar that they def improved the lives of the majority and Dany's war, insofar that they're aimed to better the lives of the majority. And even those are done by egomaniacs, genocides and ruthless dictators, those are the softest words i have for both of them.

Every other war, even the ones with positive outcomes, were done entirely for and by assholes  nobles fearing for their lives or wanting more power. From Jaeharys rebellion to Robert's.

 

Quote

And it is hilarious to believe saving 'brave Ned' is worth it get thousands of people killed and throw a continent into war. 

Well, it depends, Ned was a great ruler for them and they loved him, people go to war for lesser motives all time, ie Tywin.

 

Quote

I meant that the average Northman - the peasant - has no incentive to die to defend of free Riverrun. Just as the peasants in the Riverlands have no reason to ever come north to defend the women of the Umbers against the wildling raiders. The only reason the Northmen are marching south is because of noble egos and pissing contests and marriage ties. That should (and does) not matter to the common people.

For solidarity, their lands have been invaded and pillaged by foreigners, they need help, what is actually sad is that only noble egos, pissing contests and marriage ties are the reason for them to south and offer a helping hand, that's one of the reasons they are subjugated, for the stupid, "it's not my business keep plowing" mentality that is regarded as the best, as long as i'm good fuck the neighbour. 

 

 

10 hours ago, divica said:

But robb not knowing any of this makes him and his lords assholes. I completly agree that when he hears that his father is a prisoner he needs to cal his banners. But to rebel and declare himself king? He has no good reason to do this. As far as he know his father confessed to treason and then there is stannis who is the rightfull king if he believes ned is innocent...

 

Stannis is not the rightful King when, accoding to everyone but Stannis, because when Robb is crowned, the letter had not come yet, Robb is crowned because he don't want to serve the men had just beheaded his father and the Riverlords don't want to serve the men pillaging and raping their homeland, a very understandable reason.

Robb accepts the crowning precisely because Stannis is imbecile enough to keep his mouth shut untli months after the conflict had started.

 

 

10 hours ago, divica said:

 As a matter of fact I believe if jon was in robb's position he would have supported stannis. 

Unless Jon had the gift of seering  i very much doubt it.

 

 

33 minutes ago, divica said:

First I am not sure about when they learned the kids might be bastards, but the fact remains that they don t have any proof that ned isn t guilty. Robb had to go to KL with a show of force and learn what happened before he accepted kingship. Then the north is sworn to robert… They break their vow to follow robert's heir without a good reason!

 

What reason would be good to you?? Because it all comes to perceptions, from the Northeners and the Riverlords and especially for Robb, what the Lannisters did worth secesion.

What are the good reasons for secesion and conquest??

 

 

33 minutes ago, divica said:

 While I agree that robb had to call his banners and put pressure on the crown to release his father and sisters the moment he lets his lords declare him king he loses the moral high ground… 

 

According to whom??

 

33 minutes ago, divica said:

Having power to be independent doesn t mean it is the right thing to do at the moment...What would you be saying if the boltons declared themselves independent and marched on winterfell?

They have brek their vows and march to Winterfell for funsies.

 

33 minutes ago, divica said:

 Hell, what did he expect to happen to his familly in KL when he decides to be KITN and starts marching to KL? Did he really expect that whoever is king will just accept the north's Independence? That a northern army south of the neck won t eventually be defeated?

 

He expected defeat Tywin, almost did, rescue his sisters, i suppose that sacking KL was also on the table and kill  Joffrey, after that it was quite clear that he didn't give a fuck about anything else.

He did not expect that whoever is king will just accept indepence, but giving Redwynes and Mace the Ace reluctances about involving themselves with northern affairs, soft way of saying it,  and Merryweather approach, the North is too big it can be divided between the Northmen and IB,  i doubt any King would gather an army big enough to bring the Norh to its knees... in the North.

Especially if the Riverlands and the Vale don't play ball.

 

33 minutes ago, divica said:

 Robb was a brilliant general but he was an awfull potician and leader. Almost all of his decisions outside of battle backfired and a lot of people he trusted were incompetent or betrayed him...

Nah he was a great general but an ok politician and a very good leader.

 It's not his fault Theon and his mother went rogue, it's his fault having... married with Westerling, i mean that was madness and stupidity.

He's however a very impulsive dude and that was his doom.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

26 minutes ago, divica said:

First I am not sure about when they learned the kids might be bastards, but the fact remains that they don t have any proof that ned isn t guilty. Robb had to go to KL with a show of force and learn what happened before he accepted kingship. Then the north is sworn to robert… They break their vow to follow robert's heir without a good reason!

Robb never learns the kids might be bastards iirc & if he does hear the rumors he definitely doesn't know it for sure so again, there would absolutely no reason to support Stannis's claim to the throne! Robb had to do no such thing. All Robb had to do was defeat anyone that denounced his claim to King in the North. He tried & failed. The North is sworn to Robert not Cersei. They are supposed to support his heir but when the Queen & her bastard decided to imprison Ned the North had plenty of good reason to rebel against the crown. 

We get into a nasty gray area when discussing if it is legal or not because the King's word is law & Cersei is Queen regent of Robert's supposed heir. So in that sense it was illegal BUT had Robb succeded in separating the North from the realm, even if Cersei still called them traitors or rebels or what have you, to the North it would have been legal. Not to mention Cersei is illegally the Queen regent because her children are not the rightful heirs of Robert but bastards of her brothers. In that sense anything done to remove Cersei from power is legal. I don't think the legality of the issue depends on whether or not Cersei got caught or if Robb knows her children are bastards, the fact remains that they are bastards & she is ruling the Iron Throne illegally. 

The point here that I was originally making, that you have glossed over entirely, is that you proclaimed Robb should have supported Stannis's claim to the throne. I asked why, he would support Robert's brother's claim to the IT when he had no proof & probably no knowledge at all that the Lannister children are bastards. 

35 minutes ago, divica said:

While I agree that robb had to call his banners and put pressure on the crown to release his father and sisters the moment he lets his lords declare him king he loses the moral high ground… Having power to be independent doesn t mean it is the right thing to do at the moment...What would you be saying if the boltons declared themselves independent and marched on winterfell?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong morally I'm saying those in power make the law. If WF is powerful enough to remove themselves from the realm then it will be done whether or not you think it's right or if the crown agrees to it. 

What would I say if the Boltons declared themselves independent & marched on WF? What I would say would depend on why the boltons were marching on WF. If they had good reason I wouldn't say much. If they didn't I would call it morally wrong but either way if they had the power to do so there would be nothing for anyone to do to stop them. 

37 minutes ago, divica said:

Hell, what did he expect to happen to his familly in KL when he decides to be KITN and starts marching to KL? Did he really expect that whoever is king will just accept the north's Independence? That a northern army south of the neck won t eventually be defeated?

I imagine he didn't know what to expect but was prepared for the worst. After they beheaded his father he probably knew very well what to expect but it would have been entirely stupid to lay down his swords & surrender at that point. As a matter of fact I think it would have been a huge mistake to not march on KL the moment they imprisoned Ned. That being said, marching on KL didn't turn out so well for Robb either so I don't think there was a way he could have come out of this unscathed.

46 minutes ago, divica said:

Robb was a brilliant general but he was an awfull potician and leader. Almost all of his decisions outside of battle backfired and a lot of people he trusted were incompetent or betrayed him...

Robb was young, imature, & made some bad mistakes. Worst of all sleeping with Jeyne & marrying her. It's hard to say what may have happened if he didn't but had he kept his oath to the Frey's he may have kept their support & with their support he may have overthrown Cersei & the Lannisters. 

[divica]

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

Stannis is not the rightful King when, accoding to everyone but Stannis, because when Robb is crowned, the letter had not come yet, Robb is crowned because he don't want to serve the men had just beheaded his father and the Riverlords don't want to serve the men pillaging and raping their homeland, a very understandable reason

Robb doesn t know that bed was beheaded at this time. Just that he was imprisoned. If I remember correctly he only finds out about his father death when he sleeps with the we sterling. 

And all the pretenders to the throne are baratheons. Nobody knows how joff, Stannis or Renly will react to Tywin's actions. They need more information... 

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

What reason would be good to you?? Because it all comes to perceptions, from the Northeners and the Riverlords and especially for Robb, what the Lannisters did worth secesion.

What are the good reasons for secesion and conquest??

What did Robb know about the Lannisters actions at that point in time? 

Just that they imprisoned his father. He has no idea what really happened. And their reasons were basically that no baratheon was from the north or knew the north... Hardly worthy reasons to break faith... 

20 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nah he was a great general but an ok politician and a very good leader.

 It's not his fault Theon and his mother went rogue, it's his fault having... married with Westerling, i mean that was madness and stupidity.

He's however a very impulsive dude and that was his doom.

And what about edmure acting against his orders? Trusting roose all the time? The karstark dilemma? The way he handled jaime's imprisonment (if I remember right cat was sure that the men would kill him that night)? His inability to get allies? 

Robb did too many mistakes... He was a bad politician, a bad leader and a bad judge of character and how far people are willing to go...