Jump to content
Eternally_His

Robb's Decisions

Recommended Posts

Yes, I am suggesting that Robb was right to marry for love. What a shocker.

And in modern society. he would be. Say that Walder Frey is a lawyer. He orders Robb to marry his daughter in exchange for Walder's services. Along comes Talisa,whose dad is a bank C.E.O. What should Robb do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

I've moved the topic to show forum, as Talisa's a show-only character.

And you do realize that you're saying that an universally-loved character deserved to die in a brutal fashion, at the hand of someone whom they trusted and who could have been their father?

I think he was basically asking for it. It's not surprise that he was subject to such a brutal version of Westerosi justice. The Red Wedding in the books is a tragedy because he's just a kid who tried to do the right thing. A dumb kid, but one that wanted to be good. Robb on the show is a grown man that just does whatever he wants and cares nothing about the consequences until someone makes him.

Robb Stark proved that he didn't have the capacity to be a king, and so he shouldn't have been. Does this mean that he should have been brutally executed? No, I think that Westeros is wasteful when they just kill people like that - the Wall, even if you don't believe in snarks, still defends the realm against wildlings. The Freys should have drugged the Northern lords and put them in chains and sent them to the Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's better how? Imagine a universally loved character, surrounded by loving family and friends he thinks he can trust. One of them is old enough to be his father or even grandfather. Then he marries wrong, and suddenly, the old guy who can be his father/grandfather, who is supposed to support and advise him, stabs him in the chest for shits and giggles.

Ladies, gentlemen and pets, I present to you Robb Stark and Roose Bolton in a nutshell.

Edited by DR Supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

And that's better how? Imagine a universally loved character, surrounded by loving family and friends he thinks he can trust. One of them is old enough to be his father or even grandfather. Then he marries wrong, and suddenly, the old guy who can be his father/grandfather, who is supposed to support and advise him, stabs him in the chest for shits and giggles.

Ladies, gentlemen and pets, I present to you Robb Stark and Roose Bolton in a nutshell.

Except Roose Bolton never pretended to be fond of Robb? Roose Bolton is the ruler of a house that the Starks subjugated by conquest, and has a historical blood feud with them. That's not anywhere near being 'Uncle Roose'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Jingo said:

Except Roose Bolton never pretended to be fond of Robb? Roose Bolton is the ruler of a house that the Starks subjugated by conquest, and has a historical blood feud with them. That's not anywhere near being 'Uncle Roose'.

He was fond of Robb, at least in the show. Right up until he stabbed him. Take a look.

I mean, it could have been manipulation, but I don't think it was, not at this point anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

He was fond of Robb, at least in the show. Right up until he stabbed him. Take a look.

I mean, it could have been manipulation, but I don't think it was, not at this point anyway.

Roose is generally polite and gives decent advice as long as you take it with a grain of salt and look for the hook. That's not the same thing as being genuinely fond on a personal level of his liege lord. He's just doing his job.

He's not a cartoon villain. He was never going to be lurking in the shadow like Voldemort making hissing noises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Jingo said:

Roose is generally polite and gives decent advice as long as you take it with a grain of salt and look for the hook. That's not the same thing as being genuinely fond on a personal level of his liege lord. He's just doing his job.

He's not a cartoon villain. He was never going to be lurking in the shadow like Voldemort making hissing noises.

Exactly. He was his liege lord. He stabbed his liege lord who was far younger than him to death for the lulz. In medieval society, doing that is punishable by death. And yet Roose killed his liege lord - a likeable character - and got away with it scot free.

Also, I'll let this video convey my feelings on the matter:

My boy got wrecked. Die Roose the Moose, die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

Exactly. He was his liege lord. He stabbed his liege lord who was far younger than him to death for the lulz. In medieval society, doing that is punishable by death. And yet Roose killed his liege lord - a likeable character - and got away with it scot free.

Also, I'll let this video convey my feelings on the matter:

My boy got wrecked. Die Roose the Moose, die.

He didn't do it for the lulz. He did it in exchange for a pardon from the crown and a material advancement for his family. And considering Robb was himself a rebel king he doesn't really have a leg to stand on when declaring other people traitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Jingo said:

He didn't do it for the lulz. He did it in exchange for a pardon from the crown and a material advancement for his family. And considering Robb was himself a rebel king he doesn't really have a leg to stand on when declaring other people traitors.

Except that Joffrey didn't have a leg to stand on either, and neither did Tommen (even if he was sweet). Robb, Stannis, Bran, Davos, and even Theon had more legitimacy in their little fingers than Joffrey or Tommen had. Also, if subjugation by force is an excuse for stabbing his liege lord, then Roose has no leg to stand on either. Because guess what? Without the subjugation, Arryns would be Kings of the Vale, Baratheons would be Kings of Storm's End, Tyrells would be Kings of the Reach, Tullys would be Kings of the Trident, Lannisters would be Kings of Westerlands and Starks would be Kings in the North. At least that's what I've gathered from reading the history of the Seven Kingdoms.

Also, who deserved to die more: a fifteen-year-old boy or a man of 65/ an old man of ninety years old?

 

Edited by DR Supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

Except that Joffrey didn't have a leg to stand on either, and neither did Tommen (even if he was sweet). Robb, Stannis, Bran, Davos, and even Theon had more legitimacy in their little fingers than Joffrey or Tommen had. Also, if subjugation by force is an excuse for stabbing his liege lord, then Roose has no leg to stand on either. Because guess what? Without the subjugation, Arryns would be Kings of the Vale, Baratheons would be Kings of Storm's End, Tyrells would be Kings of the Reach, Tullys would be Kings of the Trident, Lannisters would be Kings of Westerlands and Starks would be Kings in the North. At least that's what I've gathered from reading the history of the Seven Kingdoms.

Also, who deserved to die more: a fifteen-year-old boy or a man of 65/ an old man of ninety years old?

 

Couple of problems here:

  • Joffrey and Tommen being illegitimate is often taken as fact by some characters, and we assume everybody knows about it because we the viewers know the truth. But the reality is that there is no actual proof that Joffrey and Tommen are illegitimate. Stannis sends out a letter accusing Cersei of adultery, but offers no actual proof of these claims. Renly never cared to begin with since he planned to usurp the throne by force. Balon didn't care either. And Robb assumes it's truth but he doesn't know, he simply decides 'well they executed my dad for treason, and I'd rather believe my dad was innocent than an actual traitor, so it must be true'.
  • No one said anything about subjugation by force. The Starks of the North swore fealty to the Targaryen (in exchange for recognition of their rights, as all feudal allegiances work), and then rightfully broke that allegiance when the Targs violated the "contract". The Starks then swore allegiance to House Baratheon under the usual terms. So even if we maybe assume the entire Targ dynasty was illegitimate because they forged the crown through conquest, that doesn't matter because Ned Stark willingly kneeled for Robert. The oath of allegiance was freely given by Ned and not compelled.

    This is a problem because this makes Robb a traitor. If Joffrey was the rightful King, then Ned was a traitor for trying to dethrone him and Robb is a traitor afterwards. So it was the Starks the broke the promise between the crown and the lords.

    But if Robb acknowledges that Joffrey is a bastard, then Joffreys actions have no bearing on House Baratheon and thus he owes Stannis his allegiance. But he declares independence and so Robb is still a traitor.

    Roose Bolton originally gave fealty and served Robb in his rebellion, becoming a traitor himself. Roose deciding to betray Robb ironically makes him not a traitor (or perhaps a pardoned former traitor?), since he's restoring House Bolton's allegiance to the crown. Roose is right to betray Robb to the Lannisters if he believes that Joffrey was the legitimate heir, just like he'd be right to betray Robb to Stannis if he believed that Joffrey and his siblings were bastards.
  • Age is irrelevant in regards to people deserving to die. People deserve to die based on the content of their character, not their age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people deserve to die on the content of their character, then Roose was still wrong when he did the stabbity-stabbity thing. There was hardly any character as nice and as honorable as Robb (other than his father, who he inherited those qualities from). Not to mention he was well-loved by his men and fans alike. Sure, he was a bit naive and made some wrong decision, but was that really a prerogative to stab him?

Besides, the truth of the matter is that he is a kid (at least in the books), as you yourself said. Killing a kid is not something a good person does, so this makes Roose bad by definition. In modern terms, it's akin to an old man killing a child. A big 'nope'.

Also, according to medieval custom, someone who betrays their liege lord (the person they swore allegiance to) is usually sentenced to death. And by this custom, it was Roose, not Robb, who should have been put to death. Robb never swore fealty to Joffrey/Tommen/Stannis, while Roose did swear fealty to Robb.

Roose's crimes, straight from the source

Oathbreaking

Quote

Oathbreaking is the direct violation of an oath, and a serious crime in Westeros. Those who belong to monastic orders take explicitly religious vows. Even the bonds between secular lords and their vassals are typically backed by religious oaths. Oathbreaking is therefore considered not only a crime but a sacrilege, breaking holy vows - though some sets of vows are considered more sacrosanct than others.

 
 
 
 
Quote

The penalty for oathbreaking is often death, though this may depend on the severity of the oath broken. Secular lords who rise up in rebellion but who then surrender are often forgiven (to encourage them to surrender). At other times, high treason is punished with execution. Septons of the Faith of the Seven or Maesters who break their vows are often simply expelled from their orders.

Regicide

Quote

Regicide is considered an extreme form of oathbreaking, particularly for a king to be killed by his own personal bodyguard. The Kingsguard swear the holiest of vows to serve and defend the life of their king.

Cited example of both

Quote

Roose Bolton, who betrayed his oaths as a bannerman of House Stark and personally slew Robb Stark at the Red Wedding, in exchange for rulership of the North.

Edited by DR Supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Robb’s Decisions

Robb’s decision to not rescue Sansa has rankled with me pretty badly because he knew where she was and should have tried to rescue her for a number of reasons.

  • Joffrey showed how untrustworthy he was when he had Ned beheaded against all counsel
  • Connected to the above, Sansa could have been executed on a whim or beaten to death after a victory. And where would that leave the North after Season 6 (Jon would have gone off to die alone for instance)? Since the Lannisters couldn’t find Arya, Jon was with the Night’s Watch,  and Bran and Rickon were believed dead after Season 2, the Starks’ survival hinged on Sansa.

This was the worst decision he could make; because he made no efforts to help Sansa, Catelyn decided to free Jaime, and this made the Red Wedding possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

If people deserve to die on the content of their character, then Roose was still wrong when he did the stabbity-stabbity thing. There was hardly any character as nice and as honorable as Robb (other than his father, who he inherited those qualities from). Not to mention he was well-loved by his men and fans alike. Sure, he was a bit naive and made some wrong decision, but was that really a prerogative to stab him?

Besides, the truth of the matter is that he is a kid (at least in the books), as you yourself said. Killing a kid is not something a good person does, so this makes Roose bad by definition. In modern terms, it's akin to an old man killing a child. A big 'nope'.

Also, according to medieval custom, someone who betrays their liege lord (the person they swore allegiance to) is usually sentenced to death. And by this custom, it was Roose, not Robb, who should have been put to death. Robb never swore fealty to Joffrey/Tommen/Stannis, while Roose did swear fealty to Robb.

It's not about content of character in this situation. We know Roose is a rapist, because Ramsey was conceived of rape. If we were applying basic morality to judge people across their entire lifespans, Roose would certainly be executed for various immoral acts (and those acts were even immoral by Westerosi standards).

But instead, we're talking about how justified or not (by Westerosi standards) Robb's death was in relation to the betrayals of Roose Bolton and Walder Frey. We're not talking about them as entire beings, but rather three individuals in the context of two betraying one lord in favour of the other.

Robb was a kid by our standards, but by Westeros standards he was a man.

As for oaths of allegiance, Robb was bound to Robert Baratheon and his heirs. The oath a bannerman takes to his lord isn't one that he takes for his lifetime only. He swears allegiance in his own name and in the name of all his heirs. Robb, simply by inheriting and assuming the title of 'Lord of Winterfell' was bound by the obligations of that office to the Iron Throne. New lords often come to their lieges to swear allegiance, but this is done only to confirm that they acknowledge that allegiance and that they have no intent to rebel. Even if they didn't come, they would still owe allegiance.

A hypothetical situation would be if Robb was the King of an independent North and then Greatjon Umber dies - does Smalljon have the right to say "well I'm out" and just declare independence if he'd never personally sworn an oath to Robb? Of course not. Service to the King in the North is an inherent responsibility of being 'Lord of Last Hearth'.

So as far as Walder Frey and Roose Bolton go - they were sworn to follow the Tullys and the Starks merely by being lords, but similarly as a lord the Tullys and Starks were bound to obey the Iron Throne. Now you could say that if Robb revolts Roose HAS to follow him because he's sworn to the Lord of Winterfell, but you'd be wrong. Firstly because by rebelling Robb is abdicating the right to actually be the 'Lord of Winterfell',  and secondly the Lord Paramount only holds the allegiance of the bannermen on behalf of the crown rather than by their own divine right. 

Edited by The Jingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
1
9 hours ago, The Jingo said:

But instead, we're talking about how justified or not (by Westerosi standards) Robb's death was in relation to the betrayals of Roose Bolton and Walder Frey. We're not talking about them as entire beings, but rather three individuals in the context of two betraying one lord in favour of the other.

They still betrayed him when they shouldn't have. That's the entire point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robb is a king. Edmure is a Tully. The Freys are their bannermen. They shoulnt be making demands of their king. 

 

Robb should have just "agreed", told Talisa(or Jeyne in the books) he would marry this Frey woman, then after he wins the war he'd take his seat as king in the north and do whatever the hell he wants like divorce the Frey girl and be with her. That was the smart play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 6:10 AM, Robb4Ever said:

Did Robb deserve to die?

For ending an engagement with one woman and marrying another woman? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, his actions had to have some kind of consequence otherwise it would be a fluffy animated series. If it's any consolation, Robb didn't die a deluded mass murderer like...some people. His death is much more sympathetic because the extremely bloody reaction was overkill and all he did was marry wrong. The Starks also (sort of) got their revenge.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 11:17 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Unfortunately, his actions had to have some kind of consequence otherwise it would be a fluffy animated series. If it's any consolation, Robb didn't die a deluded mass murderer like...some people. His death is much more sympathetic because the extremely bloody reaction was overkill and all he did was marry wrong. The Starks also (sort of) got their revenge.

That consequence should have been the wedding. Just the wedding. By which I mean, that they should have been satisfied with him giving them the alternative bridegroom.

Besides, some people do say that even if he honored the arrangement, he would have still been killed at his own wedding.

Edited by Robb4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×