Jump to content
The Wolves

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I liked Robb, but he had his issues. He decided it was worth risking(and eventually paying) thousands of his own people's lives for a war of revenge over one person. He never even considered an accommodation with Tywin because of his pride, even when he had the ultimate bargaining chip in Jaime.

He later decided his personal honor was more important than his kingdom(and people) as well. By doing the "honorable" thing, he drove a wedge into the backs of his own people.

Robb wasn't a bad person, but he was a product of the feudal system he was a part of. Too afraid to lose face, rather than face hard truths that might have benefited his people.

Was he the best person of the five kings? Maybe. Was he the best leader? Certainly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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. 

Robb did not go to war because of his people.

Not sure how you have came to the conclusion that he cared more about his people than the other Lords either. Any examples in the books of this?

11 minutes 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.

They all 'really care'. But they all also put their own interests and desires first. Edmure and Doran are the outliers here, not Robb. Robb is closer to Tywin, Stannis and Greyjoy in this regard.

11 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

 

He didn’t do it for the ugly chair, or more power or because of his greed or his right.

No, like Tywin he went to war because a family member was held hostage.

When his own mother told him to sue for peace, he refused, not because he could win but because he could not bear to surrender to the boy who killed his father. That is putting his own pride before his people. Same with his marriage to Jeyne, same with going to war in the first place, or ignoring Tywin in the Riverlands and heading West.

Robb's pride meant he want to war. His own personal 'honour' was more important than the people he ruled. It might make him more heroic and palpable to readers of fantasy fiction, but it does not make him a better person to the people he ruled.

11 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

 

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. 

Not countrymen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbs war turned from a war of vengeance to a war of independence. 
Morally he might have had the high ground, seeing as how 2 lords of winterfell were executed by the iron throne in the last 20 years. But it wasn’t a lawful war in any regard.

You could say Stannis had the most just cause. Seeing as how he is the rightful king by the current succession laws of the Baratheon regime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water is wet, war is unjust, there is no war that only kills the one the ones that deserved or started it, so there is no such thing as a just war.

That  said, Robb's reasons were the most sympathetic, but his cause turned to be the same as Balon... secession from the IT.

Robb didn't lose his war because he was too self centered, or because he putted his honor ahead of his kingdom. He lost because every roll of dice that was throw worked against him.

Renly's death, The Vale remaining neutral instead of responding to several provocations, Balon attacking the north, wildlings attacking the wall and raiding the north, the lion and rose alliance... none of that had anything to do with Robb's actions, and no matter what he did, he would not change those events...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he did protect Northern interests, in a sense. They didnt wanna be ruled by the Iron Throne--understandable, since folks who sit on it tend to LOVE killing/abducting Starks. Northern Independence is a great cause, I think it symbolic of all countires that resist tyranny or imperial overreach.  Who doesnt like wars for independence? Who roots for the people telling them they can't have it?

Share this post


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

Who doesnt like wars for independence? Who roots for the people telling them they can't have it?

Who would you support in the American Civil war the South or the North?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arthur Peres said:

Who would you support in the American Civil war the South or the North?

If the South wasnt fighting to keep their slaves and a majority of the people wanted to actually rule themselves, I would say sure, let them succeed, but their "states rights" reason was just a bullshit cover for their racism. Next.

Share this post


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

I think he did protect Northern interests, in a sense. They didnt wanna be ruled by the Iron Throne--understandable, since folks who sit on it tend to LOVE killing/abducting Starks. Northern Independence is a great cause, I think it symbolic of all countires that resist tyranny or imperial overreach.  Who doesnt like wars for independence? Who roots for the people telling them they can't have it?

Me.

Independence gives the Starks a crown. But it also means a return to the days when the Ironborn could reave them with impunity because the North lacks strength at sea and no one else will defend them. It means that their religion and culture is no longer protected against the Faith of the Seven or Andals in search of new lands for their second sons. It means a a decline in general prosperity as a result of trade barriers and variant coinage. It means the loss of protection against pirates and slavers from the East that no longer have the fear the royal fleet. It means that when the winters are hard and food is scarce and a King-Beyond-The-Wall marches on Winterfell, they can't expect the Reach to feed them or Southron swords to march North and reinforce them.

The cost in blood and treasure for a free Northern kingdom is high, and it's not a cost that will be paid once but continually throughout history until we reach the unlikely event of a technological revolution and a social revolution to introduce ideas of Westphalian sovereignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Independence gives the Starks a crown. But it also means a return to the days when the Ironborn could reave them with impunity because the North lacks strength at sea and no one else will defend them. It means that their religion and culture is no longer protected against the Faith of the Seven or Andals in search of new lands for their second sons. It means a a decline in general prosperity as a result of trade barriers and variant coinage. It means the loss of protection against pirates and slavers from the East that no longer have the fear the royal fleet. It means that when the winters are hard and food is scarce and a King-Beyond-The-Wall marches on Winterfell, they can't expect the Reach to feed them or Southron swords to march North and reinforce them.

 

The IT never protected the north from the IB... we saw this on Duncan and Egg:

The throne should take a lesson from Stark and Lannister," declared Ser Kyle the Cat. "At least they fight. What do the Targaryens do? King Aerys hides amongst his books, Prince Rhaegel prances naked through the Red Keep's halls, and Prince Maekar broods at Summerhall." Egg was prodding at the fire with a stick, to send sparks floating up into the night. Dunk was pleased to see him ignoring the mention of his father's name. Perhaps he's finally learned to hold that tongue of his.
"Myself, I blame Bloodraven," Ser Kyle went on. "He is the King's Hand, yet he does nothing, whilst the krakens spread flame and terror up and down the sunset sea." Ser Maynard gave a shrug. "His eye is fixed on Tyrosh, where Bittersteel sits in exile, plotting with the sons of Daemon Blackfyre. So he keeps the king's ships close at hand, lest they attempt to cross." 

 

Share this post


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

Me.

Independence gives the Starks a crown. But it also means a return to the days when the Ironborn could reave them with impunity because the North lacks strength at sea and no one else will defend them. It means that their religion and culture is no longer protected against the Faith of the Seven or Andals in search of new lands for their second sons. It means a a decline in general prosperity as a result of trade barriers and variant coinage. It means the loss of protection against pirates and slavers from the East that no longer have the fear the royal fleet. It means that when the winters are hard and food is scarce and a King-Beyond-The-Wall marches on Winterfell, they can't expect the Reach to feed them or Southron swords to march North and reinforce them.

The cost in blood and treasure for a free Northern kingdom is high, and it's not a cost that will be paid once but continually throughout history until we reach the unlikely event of a technological revolution and a social revolution to introduce ideas of Westphalian sovereignty.

Okay but the North was handling all of that fine for 8 THOUSAND years though. 

One winter they might have needed some food from the Reach. Doesn't mean they can't trade for it or take out a loan.

This sounds like some arguments I've seen against independence for Scotland, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii, ect. Just because the U.S., Britain, Spain, or France send food aid or militarily assist another country, doesn't mean the poorer country has to give up their sovereignty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The IT never protected the north from the IB... we saw this on Duncan and Egg:

The throne should take a lesson from Stark and Lannister," declared Ser Kyle the Cat. "At least they fight. What do the Targaryens do? King Aerys hides amongst his books, Prince Rhaegel prances naked through the Red Keep's halls, and Prince Maekar broods at Summerhall." Egg was prodding at the fire with a stick, to send sparks floating up into the night. Dunk was pleased to see him ignoring the mention of his father's name. Perhaps he's finally learned to hold that tongue of his.
"Myself, I blame Bloodraven," Ser Kyle went on. "He is the King's Hand, yet he does nothing, whilst the krakens spread flame and terror up and down the sunset sea." Ser Maynard gave a shrug. "His eye is fixed on Tyrosh, where Bittersteel sits in exile, plotting with the sons of Daemon Blackfyre. So he keeps the king's ships close at hand, lest they attempt to cross." 

 

"In Dagon's day a weak king sat the Iron Throne, his rheumy eyes fixed across the narrow sea where bastards and exiles plotted rebellion. So forth from Pyke Lord Dagon sailed, to make the Sunset Sea his own. He bearded the lion in his den and tied the direwolf's tail in knots, but even Dagon could not defeat the dragons."

This rather implicitly suggests that it was not the Starks and Lannisters who stopped the Greyjoy raiders when Dagon sailed, but eventually the Iron Throne when the threat of the next Blackfyre Rebellion passed. So if anything, this is proof of the necessity of the Crown since the North and the Westerlands together couldn't stop the Greyjoys without them.

19 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Okay but the North was handling all of that fine for 8 THOUSAND years though. 

One winter they might have needed some food from the Reach. Doesn't mean they can't trade for it or take out a loan.

This sounds like some arguments I've seen against independence for Scotland, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii, ect. Just because the U.S., Britain, Spain, or France send food aid or militarily assist another country, doesn't mean the poorer country has to give up their sovereignty. 

A) The North was not fine.

Recall that once upon a time from the tip of the North to the tip of Dorne - all this land was once held by the First Men. The story of the First Men is perpetual retreat in the face of the Andal invasion. The North is a holdout from earlier glory days, united by necessity but not truly thriving. Which is why it remains an underdeveloped backwater while the South has the excess resources that it can spend on nice silks and tourneys and all other sorts of decadence.

B] Further, the argument here is that the Iron Throne would  allow for trade with the North to occur. It's predicated on the assumption that the North could secede and then go its own way, trading with the Southern Kingdom and basically enjoying all the benefits of the union without paying the taxes and supporting the general political order of it. Prior to the unification the North could do this by playing one king off against the other, trading with the Reach when the Vale was closed, or trading with the Riverlands when they were at war with the Vale, or so on.

But when the South is united under an Iron Throne that wants to reconquer the North, the long term position is untenable. All the South has to do is wait until winter comes and then launch an assault on White Harbor and sack it. The North lacks both strength at sea and developed trading ports outside of White Harbor, and once White Harbor is destroyed they can no longer reliably import food from Essos. With trade to the south overland already banned, they'd very quickly starve.

C) The difference in those cases would be that in such real world countries there is often either an explicit or implicit attempt by the central authority to abolish the cultural practices of the minority. In the Seven Kingdoms it is the opposite, with the Iron Throne explicitly protecting the religious and cultural freedoms of its minorities. You could call this insincere realpolitik on behalf of the Targaryens, who in doing it also protecting their own Valyrian customs like incest, but they still did it.

Further, I'm not saying that the North has to be in a union with the South. I'm saying it's exceptionally unwise to declare independence, because the living standards of the North will suffer greatly and the reality is the South will pursue a policy of reunification anyway - probably under worse terms than the original union, such as a new union without the cultural protections the North originally enjoyed. I'm saying I'd root for those fighting against them for their own good, because I believe they'll lose either way and the North benefits more if it's a short-lived Stark rebellion than if the crown has to mount a full campaign of reconquest.

Edited by The Jingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the text is plain that Northern independence was a terrible idea. It left thousands dead (including Robb, and Catelyn) and left the North weakened against the real enemy to the North of the Wall.  It meant nothing to the Northern Smallfolk, who were never consulted about it, except to increase their risk of dying in times of famine and war.

The North was not a colony of the other six kingdoms, any more than the Vale or Reach.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Robbs war turned from a war of vengeance to a war of independence. 
Morally he might have had the high ground, seeing as how 2 lords of winterfell were executed by the iron throne in the last 20 years. But it wasn’t a lawful war in any regard.

You could say Stannis had the most just cause. Seeing as how he is the rightful king by the current succession laws of the Baratheon regime. 

Stannis’ cause was not just. He wanted power. And the Baratheon reign was built on the murder of babies and stealing the throne from the rightful rulers(The Targaryens)Plus he stood by and knowingly let his King and brothers be murdered to claim the ugly chair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Stannis’ cause was not just. He wanted power. And the Baratheon reign was built on the murder of babies and stealing the throne from the rightful rulers(The Targaryens)Plus he stood by and knowingly let his King and brothers be murdered to claim the ugly chair. 

The Baratheon regime was built when Robert overthrew the Targaryens for being tyrants.

The deaths of Rhaenys and Aegon were performed by Tywin Lannister under his own volition. Robert simply declined to charge him with a crime and dismiss it as an act legitimately undertaken during war, the same way Tywin wasn't charged by Tytos or Aerys for killing the Reyne children by drowning Castamere during the Reyne-Tarbeck Revolt.

 

Share this post


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

"In Dagon's day a weak king sat the Iron Throne, his rheumy eyes fixed across the narrow sea where bastards and exiles plotted rebellion. So forth from Pyke Lord Dagon sailed, to make the Sunset Sea his own. He bearded the lion in his den and tied the direwolf's tail in knots, but even Dagon could not defeat the dragons."

This rather implicitly suggests that it was not the Starks and Lannisters who stopped the Greyjoy raiders when Dagon sailed, but eventually the Iron Throne when the threat of the next Blackfyre Rebellion passed. So if anything, this is proof of the necessity of the Crown since the North and the Westerlands together couldn't stop the Greyjoys without them.

A) The North was not fine.

Recall that once upon a time from the tip of the North to the tip of Dorne - all this land was once held by the First Men. The story of the First Men is perpetual retreat in the face of the Andal invasion. The North is a holdout from earlier glory days, united by necessity but not truly thriving. Which is why it remains an underdeveloped backwater while the South has the excess resources that it can spend on nice silks and tourneys and all other sorts of decadence.

B] Further, the argument here is that the Iron Throne would  allow for trade with the North to occur. It's predicated on the assumption that the North could secede and then go its own way, trading with the Southern Kingdom and basically enjoying all the benefits of the union without paying the taxes and supporting the general political order of it. Prior to the unification the North could do this by playing one king off against the other, trading with the Reach when the Vale was closed, or trading with the Riverlands when they were at war with the Vale, or so on.

But when the South is united under an Iron Throne that wants to reconquer the North, the long term position is untenable. All the South has to do is wait until winter comes and then launch an assault on White Harbor and sack it. The North lacks both strength at sea and developed trading ports outside of White Harbor, and once White Harbor is destroyed they can no longer reliably import food from Essos. With trade to the south overland already banned, they'd very quickly starve.

C) The difference in those cases would be that in such real world countries there is often either an explicit or implicit attempt by the central authority to abolish the cultural practices of the minority. In the Seven Kingdoms it is the opposite, with the Iron Throne explicitly protecting the religious and cultural freedoms of its minorities. You could call this insincere realpolitik on behalf of the Targaryens, who in doing it also protecting their own Valyrian customs like incest, but they still did it.

Further, I'm not saying that the North has to be in a union with the South. I'm saying it's exceptionally unwise to declare independence, because the living standards of the North will suffer greatly and the reality is the South will pursue a policy of reunification anyway - probably under worse terms than the original union, such as a new union without the cultural protections the North originally enjoyed. I'm saying I'd root for those fighting against them for their own good, because I believe they'll lose either way and the North benefits more if it's a short-lived Stark rebellion than if the crown has to mount a full campaign of reconquest.

The North has always been fine without the South. For thousands of years before the Targaryens came 300yrs ago the North fought them all and won. They were the only region that was never conquered by the Andals. 
 

They fought the Ironborn for years and years and took back their land. They fought invaders from the sea, Andals and Ironborn alike and won. They can build ships fast because they have access to vast amounts of wood.  
 

Why do you consider the North so backwards? It’s a harsh vast land that doesn’t have the resources that the Reach or the Riverlands have. They get the worst of winter. They have resources like fur and wood to trade. They have music and tourneys but why should they care about silks and jewels when they have to prepare for deadly winters and fight Wildlings and rebellion? 
 

When has the South benefited the North besides giving them food that one time that we know of? And attacking anywhere in the North during winter is stupid. 

Share this post


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

I think he did protect Northern interests, in a sense. They didnt wanna be ruled by the Iron Throne--understandable,

How do you know this? One person, the Greatjon, said this. We have no idea if his opinion was a popular one or he was an extremist.

There has been no indications in the Fire and Blood or the History of Ice and Fire that the Northern people wanted independence. That the average Northerner cared two figs that they were governed from Winterfell or Kings Landing.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

since folks who sit on it tend to LOVE killing/abducting Starks.

That is really not true. Not in its 300 years existence.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Northern Independence is a great cause,

Why? What makes it a great cause in the books?

I get why Braveheart is a great film and a great cause by proxy. The English were raping and pillaging the Scots, they were forcing their language on them and wiping away Scottish culture, while over taxing them.

Why is it a great cause in Westeros?

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think it symbolic of all countires that resist tyranny or imperial overreach. 

More so for the Ironborn than the North. The Ironborn were actually forced to change their way of life, the Ironborn were actually suffering under the new Targaryen rule.

The North itself does not seem to have suffered. Where is the tyranny?

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Who doesnt like wars for independence? Who roots for the people telling them they can't have it?

Plenty of people. Barcelona is a great example right now, a region split between remainders and separatists. Remaining is not sexy to the outside world so their story is often ignored while their homes and economy suffer for a cause they do not want. Northern Ireland is another, with a large population who want to stay British.

The American Civil War is the obvious answer though. Don't tell me you were routing for the South to secede?

Share this post


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

But when the South is united under an Iron Throne that wants to reconquer the North, the long term position is untenable. All the South has to do is wait until winter comes and then launch an assault on White Harbor and sack it. The North lacks both strength at sea and developed trading ports outside of White Harbor, and once White Harbor is destroyed they can no longer reliably import food from Essos. With trade to the south overland already banned, they'd very quickly starve.=

Stories tilt in favor of the underdogs who defend themselves in the face of conquistadors. See: Rebels v. the Empire

1 hour ago, The Jingo said:

Recall that once upon a time from the tip of the North to the tip of Dorne - all this land was once held by the First Men. The story of the First Men is perpetual retreat in the face of the Andal invasion. The North is a holdout from earlier glory days, united by necessity but not truly thriving. Which is why it remains an underdeveloped backwater while the South has the excess resources that it can spend on nice silks and tourneys and all other sorts of decadence.

They don't want the South's decadence, they see it as unnecessary and frivolous. 

1 hour ago, The Jingo said:

 B] Further, the argument here is that the Iron Throne would  allow for trade with the North to occur. It's predicated on the assumption that the North could secede and then go its own way, trading with the Southern Kingdom and basically enjoying all the benefits of the union without paying the taxes and supporting the general political order of it. Prior to the unification the North could do this by playing one king off against the other, trading with the Reach when the Vale was closed, or trading with the Riverlands when they were at war with the Vale, or so on.

Whatever, there are like 9 free cities they could trade with. 

1 hour ago, The Jingo said:

C) The difference in those cases would be that in such real world countries there is often either an explicit or implicit attempt by the central authority to abolish the cultural practices of the minority. In the Seven Kingdoms it is the opposite, with the Iron Throne explicitly protecting the religious and cultural freedoms of its minorities. You could call this insincere realpolitik on behalf of the Targaryens, who in doing it also protecting their own Valyrian customs like incest, but they still did it.

Their cultural practice is also being ruled by a Stark, local to Winterfell. The North never integrated to the South and people have a right to choose a more local ruler if they want. This is a continent the size of South America, it's normal for a kingdom or two to split off with a land mass that large. 

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

×