Jump to content
The Wolves

Robb’s War Was The Most Just Of Them All.

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think they'll just go along with what their lords tell them. 

Northern independence does not seem to me to be an objectively good thing, in the way that independence for a colony generally is a good thing.  It's more like Brexit or Scottish independence or Catalan independence - there are pros and cons to it.  Is it best to go it alone, or be a part of a bigger entity, with the same rights as the other parts of that bigger entity?

Of course, one sympathises with Robb Stark at an individual level, because he and his mother are sympathetic characters, and the "King in the North" passage is pretty fist-pumping.  But, the consequence of seeking Northern independence was that thousands of people died for no really pressing reason.  

They died but their cause lives on, the North is set on making sure those deaths arent pointless, by remembering them and telling the IT to fuck off. They died unjustly and unfairly, in the worst possible trick that instantly made them even more sympathetic in death, especially since Robb had planned to end his war and head home. So now the North is going to be an obstacle for anyone else who wants to rule it, even if Robb and Ned are dead. Dany, Cersei, Aegon, and Roose will never rule the North for any period of significance because they dont understand it. In a sense their wars are also a "waste of time" but if there wasnt any conflict and the North just rolled over all the time like some readers want them to, we'd have no book to read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

They died but their cause lives on, the North is set on making sure those deaths arent pointless, by remembering them and telling the IT to fuck off. They died unjustly and unfairly, in the worst possible trick that instantly made them even more sympathetic in death, especially since Robb had planned to end his war and head home. So now the North is going to be an obstacle for anyone else who wants to rule it, even if Robb and Ned are dead. Dany, Cersei, Aegon, and Roose will never rule the North for any period of significance because they dont understand it. In a sense their wars are also a "waste of time" but if there wasnt any conflict and the North just rolled over all the time like some readers want them to, we'd have no book to read. 

A lot of the killing at the Red Wedding was Northmen on Northmen.  It was not just the Freys.  Roose Bolton, and Arnolf Karstarks and Lady Dustins are as much a part of the North as the Starks are.  Obviously, I want to see Roose and Ramsay overthrown, but they are not interlopers.  And, it does seem to me that with the threat approaching from North of the Wall, independence would be very much a second order issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A lot of the killing at the Red Wedding was Northmen on Northmen.  It was not just the Freys.  Roose Bolton, and Arnolf Karstarks and Lady Dustins are as much a part of the North as the Starks are.  Obviously, I want to see Roose and Ramsay overthrown, but they are not interlopers.  And, it does seem to me that with the threat approaching from North of the Wall, independence would be very much a second order issue.

Roose and Ramsay have no idea how loyal people are to the Starks. That's the crux of the whole story--people love them and keep wanting them to rule. 

I think the whole thing is complex enough to handle first and second order issues. If it was only about a big scary zombie attack it would be a lesser story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Roose and Ramsay have no idea how loyal people are to the Starks.

That seems an odd  thing to say considering Roose was able convince 3,500 Northmen in his army to turn on Robb.

Ramsay is a psychopath, but Roose seems to know the North pretty well. He does not seem to be under any illusion that becoming ruler would be easy and not without roadblocks.

4 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

That's the crux of the whole story-

No, it is not. The crux of the story of Ice and Fire is not about the love the Northern people have for the Starks. I can reasonably say you are demonstrably wrong about that.

If that is your takeaway of the five books published plus sample chapters, then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension.

4 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

-people love them and keep wanting them to rule. 

Some most certainly do. Same goes for every regions ruler, same goes for the Targs and Baratheons on the Iron Throne.

These are all established institutions, all will have many supporters.

4 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think the whole thing is complex enough to handle first and second order issues. If it was only about a big scary zombie attack it would be a lesser story. 

I don't think anyone claimed that was the only part of the story, but it is certainly the most important.

When GRRM points out that Stannis is righteous man it is due to the fact that he is the only one of the five Kings that recognizes the true threat

GRRM: And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

 

Share this post


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

That seems an odd  thing to say considering Roose was able convince 3,500 Northmen in his army to turn on Robb

Oh you got me, this is clear proof that the Starks are hated by everyone and deserve what they got. I'm sure we'll see the Northern Lords dance on their graves at the end of the books ( or, just the rest of the North will turn on Ramsay).

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Ramsay is a psychopath, but Roose seems to know the North pretty well. He does not seem to be under any illusion that becoming ruler would be easy and not without roadblocks.

The basis for Rooses' entire power depends on  the rape and forcible marriage of an 11 year old girl. Its so fragile, it could all fall apart just by Theon telling the truth or Jon stealing Ramsay's bride.

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, it is not. The crux of the story of Ice and Fire is not about the love the Northern people have for the Starks. I can reasonably say you are demonstrably wrong about that

Nope. Ice and fire are the two threats to Westeros, Kings Landing is where petty games are played, and the Starks are GRRM's favorite house, because "it all began with them."

The heart of the story is about family love that the Starks have for each other, and the love the Starks get in return. The Starks ground the entire story, you're reading about their rise and fall and rise. 

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Some most certainly do. Same goes for every regions ruler, same goes for the Targs and Baratheons on the Iron Throne.

These are all established institutions, all will have many supporters.

Northern independence exists to frustrate other contenders, its basically baked into the narrative like a Frey pie.

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

don't think anyone claimed that was the only part of the story, but it is certainly the most important.

When GRRM points out that Stannis is righteous man it is due to the fact that he is the only one of the five Kings that recognizes the true threat

Glad you brought up Stannis. There is the story of Stannis recognizing that he needs to fight ice zombies. And there is the story of Stannis trying to earn the North's loyalty and trust, because you cant just show up and declare yourself their king. So there are two concepts going on at once - who can set aside the IT to protect the realm, and who can earn people's loyalty without threatening them or hurting little girls. My guess is, Stannis, Roose, and Dany arent passing both tests. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

Northern independence does not seem to me to be an objectively good thing, in the way that independence for a colony generally is a good thing.  It's more like Brexit or Scottish independence or Catalan independence - there are pros and cons to it.  Is it best to go it alone, or be a part of a bigger entity, with the same rights as the other parts of that bigger entity?

Fair enough. In fact, even in the cases of clear colonialism, there are always "locals" that argue that it would be better to remain as a colony. There are always arguments for both sides. And in many cases, it comes down to a matter of personal preferences.

That would be my point, I guess. I'm sure there are many Northern commoners that are angry at Robb for having embarked on a lost cause that caused many deaths. But I'm also sure that there are many others who are proud of him for having at least tried to recover their ancestral rights and have the North rule itself again. And George is the only one who can say if any of those feelings has a wider following... :)

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

OP has framed this as some kind of independence movement that was done to protect the people, other people have argued against this. That this was never Robb's intentions. You get that, right? Not trying to be condescending or patronizing, you clearly are a well informed person on this forum, but answering this might save many, many pointless back and forth between the two of us.

I don't think that Robb was crowned king in a planned effort to improve the well-being of the average Northman. The Northern lords, as any extractive ruling class, takes decisions based on their own interests and preferences.

I am only trying to counter the arguments saying that the independence movement was inherently bad.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Starks also conquered the North. That is also a hard fact. The Starks are no more/less Tyrannical than the Iron Throne. Do people really not get this?

I've never said that the Starks didn't conquer the North. You had just said that "the South is not conquistadors to the North."

Besides, Robb had just been acclaimed as king without even proposing his candidacy himself.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

I hate to do this, but nowhere did I claim there was Utopia in the realm. Pointing out that there were wars in the last three centures does not invalidate anything that I have said.

It does invalidate, at least in my opinion, your claim that during the three centuries of unified rule "For the vast majority of that time peace, prosperity."

The war of conquest, Maegor's usurpation, the Dance of Dragons, four Dornish wars, four Blackfyre Rebellions, Redbeard's invasion, two Ironborn wide-scale raids, the war of the nine-penny kings, Robert's Rebellion, and the War of the Five Kings. It averages a war every 20 years, and I'm not even taking into account local uprisings.

It's entirely possible that during the millennia where there were seven separate kingdoms there were periods of time most peaceful than that. As I see it, we have no basis to assert that the unification of the seven kingdoms brought more peace or more prosperity.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

We only have to look at the Wall's population. The lack of Watch members seems to suggest that there are far less wars now than before.

I don't think that's a valid interpretation. We know for a fact that there have been two recent major conflicts in Westeros: the Greyjoy Rebellion 9 years ago, and Robert's Rebellion 15 years ago. We can count with just one hand the number of staff of the Night's Watch that ended there due to those.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

We have our own middle ages.

Do you believe that "the average smallfolk" from our own middle ages thought that all the members of the nobility were "decadent and frivolous."?

I don't think we can make that claim.

The sad thing is that it's very hard for us to know what were the most common feelings and opinions amidst the lower classes in antiquity. They were illiterate, and no one believed them worthy of writing much about them.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

But, again lets not get down the semantics argument. Do you Hairy Bear think that the Northern people, the ones who starve every winter and have to go 'hunting' to spare their families have the same luxuries as the Northern nobility?

No, of course not. What does this has to do with anything else from this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Wolves said:

He didn’t always make the best decisions on what’s best for his people or Kingdom(who does all the time?)but I honestly think he really cared. He didn’t do it for the ugly chair, or more power or because of his greed or his right. He did start off trying to help his father and uncle and countrymen. But I think he really wanted to help his people in the end. 

OP I think you're instincts are correct, Robb's strategy was poor but that doesn't mean that Northern independence is a bad idea. In fact, they should have stressed their rights to return to the Old Ways, instead of the "putting Joffrey's head on a spike" plan. Robb should have gone home like Cat suggested and played along, until all the other contenders destroyed themselves (as they are going to do anyway because they're just that dumb). Then the Northerners could declare a king once the major threats are eliminated. Good cause, bad strategy, just needed to play the game better. The Northern lords *are* hard to control when they get worked up. Thankfully his siblings will make up for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't think that Robb was crowned king in a planned effort to improve the well-being of the average Northman. The Northern lords, as any extractive ruling class, takes decisions based on their own interests and preferences.

I am only trying to counter the arguments saying that the independence movement was inherently bad.

Well in fairness we are in agreement on that. Independence on its own is a neutral decision for me but the poor planning of the movement had dire effects on the Northern population.

In effect it was a horrendous decision which benefited no one but the crows and perhaps the Others.

 

Quote

I've never said that the Starks didn't conquer the North. You had just said that "the South is not conquistadors to the North."

Ugh, not my original point. Someone else brought up the 'conquistadors' aspect of this comparing the South , I disagreed with the parallel given we are now three centuries past that and Northern way of life, Northern culture is largely unchanged, its people unchanged and certainly no worse off than they were.

The legacy of Conquistadors was murdering thousands up thousands of indigenous people, looting their temples and forcibly changing their religion all the while treating them as less than human is a poor comparison to the Iron Throne, especially as Andal culture already existed and thrived in the North.

I hate to do this again, but do you agree Rose of Red Lake's comparison, that Robb rebelling was akin to the indigenous people rebelling against the Conquistadors?

I know asking this bluntly seems anal, but in my experience these threads go into dozens of pages as people seem to get lost in what they are arguing about. Better to at least know what we are debating here.

Quote

Besides, Robb had just been acclaimed as king without even proposing his candidacy himself.

No, not quite. Robb was not forced to be King, he shot down every other suggestion in that meeting. Robb accepted the Crown.

The Greatjon declaring Robb King does not make it any more democratic than Robb coming up with the idea himself.

Quote

It does invalidate, at least in my opinion, your claim that during the three centuries of unified rule "For the vast majority of that time peace, prosperity."

Vast majority speaks for itself. In the 3,600 months of the Iron Throne how many of those months was the North at war?

This may be a semantics issue, but as far as we know there was far, far more periods of peace than there was war. That the realm itself was prosperous under Targaryen rule.

 

Quote

The war of conquest, Maegor's usurpation, the Dance of Dragons, four Dornish wars, four Blackfyre Rebellions, Redbeard's invasion, two Ironborn wide-scale raids, the war of the nine-penny kings, Robert's Rebellion, and the War of the Five Kings. It averages a war every 20 years, and I'm not even taking into account local uprisings.

How many of those Blackfyre Rebellions involved the North? The one at Butterwells was a damp squib, the Blackfyre invasion during Eggs' reign was also described as something as a nothing burger.

For the sake of clarity, when I said vast majority I thought I was being clear but that is on me and not you if I was not.

For the most part there was more peace and prosperity under the Iron Throne than there was before. That does not mean that wars no longer happened, I sincerely apologize if that was your takeaway from what I said, but they were far less common and frequent than they were before.

 

Quote

It's entirely possible that during the millennia where there were seven separate kingdoms there were periods of time most peaceful than that. As I see it, we have no basis to assert that the unification of the seven kingdoms brought more peace or more prosperity.

But there was not just seven kingdoms for a millennia, there were hundreds constantly fighting each other, subjugating each other.

In that long epoch between the assimilation of the Andals and the coming of the dragons, the Kings of the Reach warred constantly with their neighbors in a perpetual struggle for land, power, and glory. The Kings of the Rock, the Storm Kings, the many quarrelsome kings of Dorne, and the Kings of the Rivers and Hills could all be counted amongst their foes (and ofttimes amongst their allies as well.)

The size of the Watch tends to attest to that, from ten thousand to one thousand tells its own story.

Fire and Blood goes into a little more detail about the prosperity of the Kingdom under the Iron Throne

Archmaesters can and do quibble about the numbers, but most agree that the population of Westeros north of Dorne doubled during the Conciliator’s reign, whilst the population of King’s Landing increased fourfold. Lannisport, Gulltown, Duskendale, and White Harbor grew as well, though not to the same extent. With fewer men marching off to war, more remained to work the land.
Grain prices fell steadily throughout his reign, as more acres came under the
plough. Fish became notably cheaper, even for common men, as the fishing villages along the coasts grew more prosperous and more boats put to sea.
New orchards were planted everywhere from the Reach to the Neck. Lamb and mutton became more plentiful and wool finer as shepherds increased the size of their flocks. Trade increased tenfold, despite the vicissitudes of wind, weather, and wars and the disruptions they caused from time to time. The crafts flourished as well; farriers and blacksmiths, stonemasons, carpenters, millers, tanners, weavers, felters, dyers, brewers, vintners, goldsmiths and silversmiths, bakers, butchers, and cheesemakers all enjoyed a prosperity hitherto unknown west of the narrow sea.

 

So we see visible changes of the realm becoming more prosperous.

 

More importantly, why did Ned and the other Lords of the realm not try for independence after Aerys had died? Ned, along with Jon Arryn, had to convince Robert to take the Throne. Ned is one of the principle architects of why the Iron Throne still exists. I have more faith in the judgement of 21 year old Ned and Jon than I do 15 year old Robb and the Greatjon.

Why do you think Ned and Jon wanted the Iron Throne to continue?

Quote

I don't think that's a valid interpretation. We know for a fact that there have been two recent major conflicts in Westeros: the Greyjoy Rebellion 9 years ago, and Robert's Rebellion 15 years ago. We can count with just one hand the number of staff of the Night's Watch that ended there due to those.

Sure. We don't know how most of the Nights Watch members joined though. 

Quote

 

Do you believe that "the average smallfolk" from our own middle ages thought that all the members of the nobility were "decadent and frivolous."?

I think the vast majority did compared to their own lives. So yes.

Quote

I don't think we can make that claim.

We can, you can disagree with it, but even in our own more educated society most people have an idolized version of how the nobility live.

Quote

The sad thing is that it's very hard for us to know what were the most common feelings and opinions amidst the lower classes in antiquity. They were illiterate, and no one believed them worthy of writing much about them.

True.

Quote

No, of course not. What does this has to do with anything else from this thread?

It is good to see what people's positions on here are. It might seem like an insulting question to you for me to ask what your stance on something is, but in my experience it is best to do this now rather than find out in 10 pages time that neither of us are actually in disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Oh you got me, this is clear proof that the Starks are hated by everyone and deserve what they got.

Come on, no need to act like a child. At no point have I suggested that the Starks are hated by everyone and deserve what they got.  Please grow up.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

I'm sure we'll see the Northern Lords dance on their graves at the end of the books ( or, just the rest of the North will turn on Ramsay).

Have I suggested that in any of my posts?

I'm sorry if you and @thehairybear think that is what I said (he's not responded to you at all in this discussion and disagreed with most of my posts, so can only assume you both share the same thoughts) but it is not.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The basis for Rooses' entire power depends on  the rape and forcible marriage of an 11 year old girl.

No, it does not. He was able to convince half of the Northern army to follow him before that, he was able to get the Dustins, Ryswells and half the Umbers on side to do that.

Part of his power is on that, but not all of it. He was able to remove Robb and most of his Lordly rivals without that 11 year old girl.

When you quote this, please read it three times before you try to strawman what I have actually just said.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

Its so fragile, it could all fall apart just by Theon telling the truth or Jon stealing Ramsay's bride.

Possibly, but there are other reasons for that, such as Ramsay being a psychopath and Stannis' army being in the North, while Rickon remains an option for other insurgents.

To be clear, the North is split. It could go anyway, but you are underestimating the power of Roose and overestimating the love for the Starks.

It is a more nuances' discussion than 'everyone loves the Starks; and everyone hates them. There is middle gorund.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Nope. Ice and fire are the two threats to Westeros, Kings Landing is where petty games are played, and the Starks are GRRM's favorite house, because "it all began with them."

What do you mean nope? If nope, then quote the author. I'm happy to be wrong, but when you claim the author has said something then its a good idea to back up that claim when asked.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The heart of the story is about family love that the Starks have for each other,

No, not really. Given that Tyrion and Dany are two of the three principal characters, that does not seem to be the case.

 

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

and the love the Starks get in return.

Again, 6 books in and that does not seem to be one of the main points of the story. It certainly exists, but it is not a major part of the novels.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

The Starks ground the entire story, you're reading about their rise and fall and rise. 

How many pages of AFFC featured a Stark?

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Northern independence exists to frustrate other contenders, its basically baked into the narrative like a Frey pie.

Sure, it exists. But thus far, 6 books in, it is a minor part of the series.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Glad you brought up Stannis.

Well I was quoting the author. Are you going to tell me he is wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framing this whole thing as 'independence' is nonsense. None of the Seven Kingdoms was ever a nation-state. They were feudal kingdoms with borders that were never properly fixed, and the only real borders between particular regions are geographical barriers - things like the Red Mountains, the Mountains of the Moon, the swamps of the Neck, etc.

There is no 'independence movement' in the attempt of a particular noble house to redefine their own status and role within the existing feudal tapestry of the Seven Kingdoms - and that's all that is. The Starks, a former royal house which swore fealty to the Targaryens and then to the Baratheons, decided they will no longer do this.

That has nothing to do with modern independence movements, nothing with (pretty much nonexistent) cultural differences, nothing with language barriers, different religions, etc. It is just something that goes back to aristocratic blustering, pride, and a sense of self-importance.

The people of the North as well as most of the actual nobility of the North never proclaim Robb Stark their king nor do they ever do homage to him in this capacity (or as Lord of Winterfell). 'King' Robb never sets a foot in the North while he claims to be the King in the North (which he geographically never is - he lived and died as the King of the Trident).

[In all this the actual independence movement in Dorne is very different, where we actually get a strong sense of Dornish identity as a state as well as a desire to resist foreign rule. The Dornish smallfolk continuing the war against Daeron I after the Dornish nobility and the Martells had bent the knee is a genuine independence movement.]

I'd also doubt that the North was ever conquered by Aegon the Conqueror. There was no battle fought between the Targaryen army and the Northmen. No Northman killed a Targaryen man during the Wars of Conquest nor was any Northman killed by a Targaryen man. Torrhen Stark just submitted to Aegon the Conqueror (in relation to the North the term 'so-called Conqueror' would be more adequate), either because he was the weakest wimp in the entire history of House Stark (rather unlikely) or because the deal Aegon Targaryen offered him actually profited him and his people more than keeping his crown. It is rather obvious that the Starks could have defied the Targaryens for years and decades - it would have been costly for them, of course, thousands and tens of thousands of Northmen would have died, but Aegon's dragons wouldn't have helped him to hold or rule the North if the people had been against him (just as the dragons failed Aegon in the much smaller Dorne).

Thus the obvious answer here is that Torrhen Stark realized that a united Westeros under one king - a king who wasn't named Torrhen Stark, unfortunately - would be much better for his people than the continued independence of the North. And what did the Starks lose in that deal? Essentially nothing. Sure, they gave up their crown (which they likely didn't wear every day, anyway) and their royal titles, and they had to pay some taxes to the Iron Throne now, but that was it, basically. The Starks of Winterfell didn't lose so much as a fraction of their real royal power over their lords and smallfolk. Instead, it is even even likely that their factual power increased considering as Wardens of the North and Lords of Winterfell they were now the representatives of the dragons in the North, meaning any of their unruly bannermen and lords thinking of rebellion or defiance would have known that if push came to shove the Wardens of the North could call on the help of a royal dragonrider to punish a rebel or outlaw lord.

For the northern smallfolk the unification of the Realm would have greatly increased trade and support in winter and during other times of need. We do know that Targaryen kings shipped grain north in times of need - something that would have not happened before the Conquest. We don't have numbers, but chances are not bad that the numbers of Northmen freezing and starving to death in winter were greatly reduced after the Conquest.

We even see bits of this in FaB - in TWoIaF there is talk about some Northmen (and even some of Torrhen's son) opposing the submission to the Targaryens, but Torrhen forces the founders of the Company of the Rose into exile, and the Brandon Stark from FaB (who might be one of Torrhen's sons and his successor) compares young Jaehaerys I with Aegon I in a positive sense - meaning that this Stark lord at least came respect Aegon the Conqueror. Alaric Stark's issues with Jaehaerys I are all personal and go back to his weird reinterpretation of mercy and him ridiculously ignoring his brother's own role in his death - nobody forced Lord Walton to pursue the turncloak Kingsguard beyond the Wall. That was his decision.

The idea that even the nobility as per ADwD gives a damn about independence is completely unsupported by the text at this point. Wylla Manderly - an outspoken Stark partisan - doesn't say they should become independent again, she says they should join Stannis because he would give them a chance to avenge their fallen countrymen/leaders. And the whores of White Harbor see the Targaryens as their rightful royal dynasty, not the Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 12:17 AM, The Wolves said:

They all had their reasons for the wars that they fought but I think Robb out of them all had the most just reason. He out of all of them cared about his people more than Stannis, Greyjoy, and certainly the Lannisters. 
 

He didn’t always make the best decisions on what’s best for his people or Kingdom(who does all the time?)but I honestly think he really cared. He didn’t do it for the ugly chair, or more power or because of his greed or his right. He did start off trying to help his father and uncle and countrymen. But I think he really wanted to help his people in the end. 

 

This is not Braveheart. Yes the North is in a similar geographic position but that’s where the similarity ends. 

I don’t think the common man ever factored into any decision a Stark made; especially not Rob Stark. He wants personal vengeance because his Daddy tried to start a coup in the capital. Then his Lords proclaim him King to enhance their own prestige. There’s no talk of southern laws and religion being imposed upon the people of the North. There’s not military occupation. All the atrocities happen to the North as a direct consequence of the Starks prosecution of the war. That is no more morally justifiable than the Emperor of Austria starting WW1 because his son got shot. It is incredibly petty and an egregious abuse of power by one family; which has brought nothing but death and ruin to the world.

Also, because Rob Stark is upholding feudalism he and his family are by definition holding the people of the North as serfs. This is a form of near slavery and is a system that can only be sustained through violence and coercion. They are a parasitic warrior aristocracy that is living off the backs of their peasants. They do not at all care about the people of the North. If they did they would not uphold feudalism as a social system.

You are assuming that when Rob refers to the North he is referring to a nation. This is a 19th century concept that would not exist in the Middle Ages. The idea that the people comprise the nation and that this entity should naturally be independent. Rob is referring to his property when he talks of the North. To him there is no distinction between the North, a region full of First Men in the icy north to the Riverlands. Which, he spends a copious amount of time trying to incorporate into his families estates. This is not a nationalist struggle. The very fact that George refers to this region by such a bland geographic name like the North rather than its own name heavily implies that this isn’t a separate national entity.

Stannis actually has a clear dynastic claim to the previous King. Rob Stark secedes from the Kingdom after his family fails to overthrow the government in Kings Landing and murder Tywin heir. He then digs up some ancient claim to Kingship 300 years ago. These are criminal actions which the Starks do not have the authority to do.

Balon Greyjoy is literally doing exactly the same thing that Rob Stark does. Yes, he’s an ugly and minging man but that’s a trite distinction. He wants to secede and he wants revenge for personal wrongs. 

The Lannister’s are a status quo faction. They wish to keep Cersei’s children on the throne. If you ignore personalities, that’s only a problem because the Starks start a war to depose their family. Everything the Lannister’s do is a response to the Starks continuous provocations and straight up bungling. Kidnapping Tyrion. Trying to kill Tyrion in a show trial. Escalating by declaring Tywin a criminal. Starting a coup in KL. Sending a Northern army into the Riverlands to conquer it. Tywin is mostly just responding to what the Starks are doing and the above are not remotely innocent acts. From the Lannister perspective it’s reasonable to assume that the Starks, inexplicably, are making a bid for power to overthrow the Baratheons.

So yes Rob is the worst and least morally justifiable contender to the throne. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people have died to avenge one boy being pushed out of a window. This is one families quest for revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

This is not Braveheart. Yes the North is in a similar geographic position but that’s where the similarity ends. 

I don’t think the common man ever factored into any decision a Stark made; especially not Rob Stark. He wants personal vengeance because his Daddy tried to start a coup in the capital. Then his Lords proclaim him King to enhance their own prestige. There’s no talk of southern laws and religion being imposed upon the people of the North. There’s not military occupation. All the atrocities happen to the North as a direct consequence of the Starks prosecution of the war. That is no more morally justifiable than the Emperor of Austria starting WW1 because his son got shot. It is incredibly petty and an egregious abuse of power by one family; which has brought nothing but death and ruin to the world.

Also, because Rob Stark is upholding feudalism he and his family are by definition holding the people of the North as serfs. This is a form of near slavery and is a system that can only be sustained through violence and coercion. They are a parasitic warrior aristocracy that is living off the backs of their peasants. They do not at all care about the people of the North. If they did they would not uphold feudalism as a social system.

You are assuming that when Rob refers to the North he is referring to a nation. This is a 19th century concept that would not exist in the Middle Ages. The idea that the people comprise the nation and that this entity should naturally be independent. Rob is referring to his property when he talks of the North. To him there is no distinction between the North, a region full of First Men in the icy north to the Riverlands. Which, he spends a copious amount of time trying to incorporate into his families estates. This is not a nationalist struggle. The very fact that George refers to this region by such a bland geographic name like the North rather than its own name heavily implies that this isn’t a separate national entity.

Stannis actually has a clear dynastic claim to the previous King. Rob Stark secedes from the Kingdom after his family fails to overthrow the government in Kings Landing and murder Tywin heir. He then digs up some ancient claim to Kingship 300 years ago. These are criminal actions which the Starks do not have the authority to do.

Balon Greyjoy is literally doing exactly the same thing that Rob Stark does. Yes, he’s an ugly and minging man but that’s a trite distinction. He wants to secede and he wants revenge for personal wrongs. 

The Lannister’s are a status quo faction. They wish to keep Cersei’s children on the throne. If you ignore personalities, that’s only a problem because the Starks start a war to depose their family. Everything the Lannister’s do is a response to the Starks continuous provocations and straight up bungling. Kidnapping Tyrion. Trying to kill Tyrion in a show trial. Escalating by declaring Tywin a criminal. Starting a coup in KL. Sending a Northern army into the Riverlands to conquer it. Tywin is mostly just responding to what the Starks are doing and the above are not remotely innocent acts. From the Lannister perspective it’s reasonable to assume that the Starks, inexplicably, are making a bid for power to overthrow the Baratheons.

So yes Rob is the worst and least morally justifiable contender to the throne. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people have died to avenge one boy being pushed out of a window. This is one families quest for revenge.

Hmm, well.

I certainly don't think Robb was wrong to call his banners to attempt to free Ned, and to protect his relatives and their people in the Riverlands.  Do nothing, and you'll rapidly find your Bannermen will be looking for another Lord Paramount to lead them.  And, why should people just be expected to submit to injustice?  

But, once Ned had been killed, I think his priority ought to have been freeing Sansa, not fighting for an independent North.  Alternatively, he could have backed Stannis or Renly, in order to get Joffrey's head put on a spike, and to break the power of the Lannisters.  By declaring independence, he ensured that every other contender would be his enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2020 at 7:17 PM, The Wolves said:

They all had their reasons for the wars that they fought but I think Robb out of them all had the most just reason. He out of all of them cared about his people more than Stannis, Greyjoy, and certainly the Lannisters. 
 

He didn’t always make the best decisions on what’s best for his people or Kingdom(who does all the time?)but I honestly think he really cared. He didn’t do it for the ugly chair, or more power or because of his greed or his right. He did start off trying to help his father and uncle and countrymen. But I think he really wanted to help his people in the end. 

The only justified war in the story is Daenerys Targaryen's war against the slave masters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You are assuming that when Rob refers to the North he is referring to a nation. This is a 19th century concept that would not exist in the Middle Ages.

This is a very complex topic that tends to be controversial. Not in small part because the definitions of "nation" and "nationalism" are not universally agreed upon. Historian Adrian Hastings said: "One can find historians to date 'the dawn of English national consciousness' (or some such phrase) in almost every century from the eighth to the nineteenth".

That said, most medievalists use the word nationalism in their works at least from around the 13th century, if not before. I recommend reading this essay from Oxford's medieval history professor Rees Davis. If you are not tired, you can continue with G.G. Coulton's Nationalism in the Middle Ages.

In the links you'll find plenty of instances where (call it nationalism or not), the inhabitants of a given place felt united by a common culture and inheritance. And they already  used the term "nation" (Davis: "the first and last native prince of Wales, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (d. 1282) referred on more than one occasion in his letters to 'nostra nacio' ")

14 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The very fact that George refers to this region by such a bland geographic name like the North rather than its own name heavily implies that this isn’t a separate national entity.

Westeros itself is named after a bland geographic term. So is Austria (Eastern kingdom), Norway (North way), Yemen (South),... Plenty of separate national entities have bland names. :)

22 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I hate to do this again, but do you agree Rose of Red Lake's comparison, that Robb rebelling was akin to the indigenous people rebelling against the Conquistadors?

I don't think that Rose of Red Lake has ever suggested that it's a one to one equivalence. She also brought up the comparison of the Empire vs. the Rebels.

It's not in my place to put words in someone else's mouth, but I think that she was just claiming that it's more usual to empathize with the small underdog who strives for some freedom or a higher degree of local rule, than with the huge imperial power. And I'd certainly agree with that.

22 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Greatjon declaring Robb King does not make it any more democratic than Robb coming up with the idea himself.

As I see it, the main difference between Robb and Balon is that Robb only pretended to be the king of the people that had proclaimed him. Balon, instead, was willing to expand his rule on new territories. Robb's actions had a clear defensive nature, while Balon supported pillage and expansionism.

If, after Robert's death, Balon had reunited with his principal lords and had decided to proclaim himself king, I wouldn't have any problem with it. It's only his uncalled-for attacks and his will to subjugate others that are worthy of disapproval.

22 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Vast majority speaks for itself. In the 3,600 months of the Iron Throne how many of those months was the North at war?

As much as I'd like to give you a definite figure, I can't. The equally relevant question would be how much months the North was at war during the 3,600 months immediately before the Conquest. It doesn't seem to me that it's a foregone conclusion that the answer to the first question is smaller that the second's.

(In any case, thanks for the quote from the World Book that supports your thesis. I have some doubts about how much faith we can put on Yandel on this issue. He is a clear supporter of a united realm, and admits that not all maesters agree. I remain an skeptic.)

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Torrhen Stark just submitted to Aegon the Conqueror (in relation to the North the term 'so-called Conqueror' would be more adequate), either because he was the weakest wimp in the entire history of House Stark (rather unlikely) or because the deal Aegon Targaryen offered him actually profited him and his people more than keeping his crown.

Torrhen had just heard about the Field of Fire and the destruction of Harrenhal. The entire lines of two kings had just been ended forever by Aegon in a matter of weeks. There are clearly more options than him being "the weakest wimp in the entire history of House Stark" or some kind "Westerosi unionist" that believes that kneeling to foreigners will bring him long-term benefits.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is rather obvious that the Starks could have defied the Targaryens for years and decades - it would have been costly for them, of course, thousands and tens of thousands of Northmen would have died, but Aegon's dragons wouldn't have helped him to hold or rule the North if the people had been against him (just as the dragons failed Aegon in the much smaller Dorne).

In many ways, it was easier for Dorne to resist the dragons than the North. Dornish troops are highly mobile, while the snowy terrain of the North makes it much more difficult. The Dornish strategy of abandoning their castles when the dragons came wouldn't work, as your troops wouldn't last much in the open with the Northern weather.

 

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't think that Rose of Red Lake has ever suggested that it's a one to one equivalence. She also brought up the comparison of the Empire vs. the Rebels.

It's not in my place to put words in someone else's mouth, but I think that she was just claiming that it's more usual to empathize with the small underdog who strives for some freedom or a higher degree of local rule, than with the huge imperial power. And I'd certainly agree with that.

I'm genuinely at a loss how this is an apt comparison. Robb was not rebelling because of freedom. From all we know there does not seem to have been any real restrictions on the Northern people or lords regarding how they ruled. Apart from the loss of the ability to rape women on their wedding nights nothing seems to have been changed.

In the first chapters of the book the Starks are excited about the visiting members of the Iron Throne. Nothing from these chapters, set half a year before Robb's crowning, indicate anything about an imperial power dominating a smaller one.

The series itself is based on the War of the Roses. Objectively there was no good or bad guys in this conflict, though obviously if you were a member of either faction you would certainly think there was. Trying to frame it as the Empire vs the Rebels just seems wrong  and to fundamentally missing the author's intentions.

 

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

As I see it, the main difference between Robb and Balon is that Robb only pretended to be the king of the people that had proclaimed him. Balon, instead, was willing to expand his rule on new territories. Robb's actions had a clear defensive nature, while Balon supported pillage and expansionism.

Not sure that is true. Robb was asked to defend the Riverlands by his new subjects, and he told them no, he moved West. He was certainly defending his families property, Riverrun, but I think it a push to say his actions were defensive in nature for the rest of the Riverlands or North. It can even be argued, given what Robb actually said, that the main reason for going to Riverrun was to gain their armies rather than to actually defend them.

I also think there is a fair amount of pillaging done by Robb's army in both the Westerlands and Riverlands, actual more so than Balon's forces did in the North.

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

If, after Robert's death, Balon had reunited with his principal lords and had decided to proclaim himself king, I wouldn't have any problem with it. It's only his uncalled-for attacks and his will to subjugate others that are worthy of disapproval.

Robb pretty much did the same. A minority of Northern and Riverland nobles proclaimed him King, they rest were not consulted on it, it was fait accompli by the time the vast majority of these lands found out about it.

Not to be blunt, but many in the fandom really romanticize the North in spite of GRRM's actual words (they, as a both a nobility and smallfolk, are no better or worse than their Southern neighbours). And invent motivations that were not there in the book.

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

As much as I'd like to give you a definite figure, I can't. The equally relevant question would be how much months the North was at war during the 3,600 months immediately before the Conquest. It doesn't seem to me that it's a foregone conclusion that the answer to the first question is smaller that the second's.

(In any case, thanks for the quote from the World Book that supports your thesis. I have some doubts about how much faith we can put on Yandel on this issue. He is a clear supporter of a united realm, and admits that not all maesters agree. I remain an skeptic.)

Sure. But until some information that contradicts the words from Fire and Blood about the prosperity come forth then we do have to treat it as canon.

 

Share this post


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

I'm genuinely at a loss how this is an apt comparison.

No one said it is. No one is looking for close parallels. The point that's being made is that many people (myself included) will tend to side with the underdog. And that, in principle, and before stopping to analyze the particulars of the individual case, one would favor the ones that are asking for more autonomy than the ones that deny it.

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

From all we know there does not seem to have been any real restrictions on the Northern people or lords regarding how they ruled.

We don't know. Just as we don't know if they had to pay significant taxes to the throne, if the Northern culture suffered from the submission to the South, or if the average Northman was particularly happy with how the Iron Throne ruled.

But in any case, it seems to me that some boarders are fine with conquests (no one is wondering what the Northern people or lords felt about Torrhen bending the knee), but instead they are putting many conditions for a secession to be acceptable. As if you could only wish to secede if your are severely oppressed. I don't feel that way. It's conquests that require exceptional motives.

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I also think there is a fair amount of pillaging done by Robb's army in both the Westerlands and Riverlands, actual more so than Balon's forces did in the North.

Robb is seen in more favorable light because he only attacked the West after Tywin had raided the Riverlands. Balon attacked the North without provocation or even a declaration of war.

It surprises to me how you are so opposed to inexact comparisons in some cases (Targaryens were not conquistadors!) while freely defend others (Robb did the same than Balon!) ;)

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb pretty much did the same. A minority of Northern and Riverland nobles proclaimed him King, they rest were not consulted on it, it was fait accompli by the time the vast majority of these lands found out about it.

And still, the decision to crown Robb Stark as king had more explicit consensus among the Northmen that Torrhen's decision to surrender his crown (we are told that most of the lords in his council opposed the idea).

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

But until some information that contradicts the words from Fire and Blood about the prosperity come forth then we do have to treat it as canon.

The text from Fire and Blood or the World Book are canon not in the sense that what's written in it is true. They are canon in the sense that it's what one particular maester says about historical events, given his particular sources, biases and personal interests.

No one here believes that Elia killed her children, I hope....:ack:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Torrhen had just heard about the Field of Fire and the destruction of Harrenhal. The entire lines of two kings had just been ended forever by Aegon in a matter of weeks. There are clearly more options than him being "the weakest wimp in the entire history of House Stark" or some kind "Westerosi unionist" that believes that kneeling to foreigners will bring him long-term benefits.

But he clearly was the latter, else he wouldn't have bent the knee. He could have just faked submission and then decided to goad Aegon and his three dragons to come and get him. The North wasn't conquered and the Starks were not defeated. They just gave up without a fight ... meaning they were either pathetic or smart.

And, frankly, Harren the Black was a hated tyrant whose ambitions of new conquests threatened his neighbors, the Starks included. Nobody was sad that this guy was dead.

3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

In many ways, it was easier for Dorne to resist the dragons than the North. Dornish troops are highly mobile, while the snowy terrain of the North makes it much more difficult. The Dornish strategy of abandoning their castles when the dragons came wouldn't work, as your troops wouldn't last much in the open with the Northern weather.

On what do you base this? Nobody in the series or the history ever tried to conquer the North from the south. The North's territory is vast and unfertile and wild - Aegon would need an enormous army to conquer and hold it if the native nobility and smallfolk were against him. It would be harder, not easier, for the Targaryens to hold it than Dorne. And the dragons could help destroy castles and keeps and the like, but as Dorne proves: the power to destroy buildings and towns and even cities doesn't give you power over the people if they refuse to accept your rule.

 

3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

This is a very complex topic that tends to be controversial. Not in small part because the definitions of "nation" and "nationalism" are not universally agreed upon. Historian Adrian Hastings said: "One can find historians to date 'the dawn of English national consciousness' (or some such phrase) in almost every century from the eighth to the nineteenth".

That said, most medievalists use the word nationalism in their works at least from around the 13th century, if not before. I recommend reading this essay from Oxford's medieval history professor Rees Davis. If you are not tired, you can continue with G.G. Coulton's Nationalism in the Middle Ages.

In the links you'll find plenty of instances where (call it nationalism or not), the inhabitants of a given place felt united by a common culture and inheritance. And they already  used the term "nation" (Davis: "the first and last native prince of Wales, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (d. 1282) referred on more than one occasion in his letters to 'nostra nacio' ")

Those things would only be relevant in relation to ASoIaF if in-universe, in the text, we could find hints of 'nationalist tendencies' - which we can't, especially not with the North. There is some sort of proto-nationalism in Dorne but nowhere else.

And, frankly, the way the English try to (re-)construct some sort of national identity is pretty hilarious at times. Their royal family from William onwards were always foreigners (Normans, French, Welsh, Scots, and a lot of Germans), since 1066 the English elite were Norman-French, the high culture of England was French, the court spoke Norman-French until the reign of Richard II, etc.

There may be some sort of counter/lesser culture of 'us against them' (the English conquered against the French conquerors) mentality, but the kingdom of the Norman and Plantagenets king was more than just England, and it was the actual real thing. How some peasants felt was completely irrelevant. The important thing that you were loyal to your king - who was neither English, nor speaking English, nor giving much thought to the English.

A feudal monarchy has literally nor room for legal constructs like nations because such stable/abstract legal constructs go against the very heart of the interests of royal and noble families who always try to increase their power and property by acquiring more lands and titles by means of inheritance and marriage. If nations existed back in the day when the Hapsburg started the rise from obscurity to the dominating power in Europe they wouldn't have gotten far.

Nobility in the middle ages (and in Westeros) do care more about their common class interests than they do care about the cultural identity of their smallfolk and subjects. The Starks - like any noble or royal house - rule for themselves, not for the good of their people. And like their medieval counterparts the Starks would have more in common with the Targaryens of Dragonstone than their own peasants.

7 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

No one said it is. No one is looking for close parallels. The point that's being made is that many people (myself included) will tend to side with the underdog. And that, in principle, and before stopping to analyze the particulars of the individual case, one would favor the ones that are asking for more autonomy than the ones that deny it.

The Northmen aren't underdogs.

7 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

We don't know. Just as we don't know if they had to pay significant taxes to the throne, if the Northern culture suffered from the submission to the South, or if the average Northman was particularly happy with how the Iron Throne ruled.

While nobody in-universe is saying that they did or might have there is no reason to assume that they did. Just as there is no reason to assume that anyone in the North ever wanted independence before that stupid war council.

In fact, if there were such tendencies then Ned would have been aware of those, and the Rebellion may have ended with Eddard Stark peacefully seceding from the Iron Throne. He would have had the power to do so.

7 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

But in any case, it seems to me that some boarders are fine with conquests (no one is wondering what the Northern people or lords felt about Torrhen bending the knee), but instead they are putting many conditions for a secession to be acceptable. As if you could only wish to secede if your are severely oppressed. I don't feel that way. It's conquests that require exceptional motives.

Their opinion is actually irrelevant. It is not the place of a vassal or bannermen to question the decision of his liege lord. If I were your king and you some lord serving me I could decide to bent the knee to whoever I chose. Your allegiance to me is not conditional on the fact that I am a sovereign monarch. If you were objecting you would betray the vows you swore to me, making an enemy out of myself and my new overlord.

7 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

And still, the decision to crown Robb Stark as king had more explicit consensus among the Northmen that Torrhen's decision to surrender his crown (we are told that most of the lords in his council opposed the idea).

If Torrhen wasn't a wimp then his opinion is the only one that counted. He was the king, after all. The problem with Robb's proclamation is that a very small cabal of ambitious and stupid lords agreed to do this. Three lords of the North (one of the Lady of Bear Island, a very insignificant lordship in the North) made Robb king. The only guy favoring independence there was the Greatjon. Rickard Karstark's reason to agree to this was that this would be a way how he could make peace with the Iron Throne - he interprets this is a slap in the face of the people who killed his sons, not a way to pursue some deeply held political agenda.

7 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The text from Fire and Blood or the World Book are canon not in the sense that what's written in it is true. They are canon in the sense that it's what one particular maester says about historical events, given his particular sources, biases and personal interests.

No one here believes that Elia killed her children, I hope....:ack:

This is the standard way to try to dismiss crucial background information. But it doesn't really work. Yandel never said that Elia killed her children - he said there are rumors that she may have done that. He doesn't lie, he just decides to not include the theory/rumor that Tywin's thugs did it in his book.

The idea that the prosperity of the united Realm after the Conquest is just propaganda is preposterous in light of the fact that there aren't the slightest indications both in the history pieces as well as the main series that the situation of the North under the dragons was worse in comparison to the days before the Conquest.

In fact, the War of the Five Kings does show what the Starks/Northmen are if they try to do things on their own ... they are fucked. The Ironborn fuck them, the Lannisters fuck them, the Boltons fuck them, the wildlings fuck them, and the Others soon will fuck them.

Robb Stark is actually the worst of the five would-be kings during the War of the Five Kings. He is the king who left his home - Winterfell and the North - unprotected from the Ironborn and the wildlings. He is the king whose campaign cost him his home, forcing his poor younger brothers to go underground like beggars. He left his kingdom to the wolves to pursue some stupid war to satisfy his own ego - which was to become another Young Dragon. And, in a sense, he got his wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 8:31 AM, Bernie Mac said:

I don't speak for GRRM, but I am pretty sure the biggest threat to the North is the White Walkers, it was never about being ruled from Kings Landing.

Out of curiosity, I found some possibly relevant interviews. 

NME

Quote

“The people in Westeros are fighting their individual battles over power and status and wealth. And those are so distracting them that they’re ignoring the threat of ‘winter is coming,’ which has the potential to destroy all of them and to destroy their world,” he told The New York Times Style Magazine.

Rolling Stone

Quote

You’re a congenial man, yet these books are incredibly violent. Does that ever feel at odds with these views about power and war?

The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that. World War I is much more typical of the wars of history than World War II – the kind of war you look back afterward and say, “What the hell were we fighting for? Why did all these millions of people have to die? Was it really worth it to get rid of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that we wiped out an entire generation, and tore up half the continent? Was the War of 1812 worth fighting? The Spanish-American War? What the hell were these people fighting for?”

Al Jazeera

Quote

You know, one of the dynamics I started with, there was the sense of people being so consumed by their petty struggles for power within the seven kingdoms, within King’s Landing — who’s going to be king? Who’s going to be on the Small Council? Who’s going to determine the policies? — that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 1:18 PM, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

If you're calling  Robb's war just, then you gotta call Tywin's just too. They both went to war for the same reason. Someone took a member of their family hostage. 

The diference being that Tywin keep the agression going after Tyrion be released and he already had Edmure as hostage to trade/ramson.

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

×