Jump to content

Would Robb's story actually have improved if he'd executed Jaime?


James Steller

Recommended Posts

I see so many claims that Catelyn releasing Jaime was one of the big turning points in Robb's campaign. But what would the alternative have been?

Let's assume that Jaime gets executed instead of released. Whether in response to Ned's execution or to give Rickard Karstark some vengeance for his sons, or both, but would Jaime being killed in cold blood have really been a better option?

If Jaime was killed, I daresay Tywin would want the Starks to suffer even worse than he did in the main story. And sure, having Jaime dead means Catelyn can't release him later, which means Rickard Karstark stays loyal, but Robb still alienates the Freys, and the Red Wedding still happens except that the Karstarks and Brienne get killed or captured at the Red Wedding too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would have been a better option. 

The value of a hostage comes from the fact that if you have one you can assume that 

A] Any hostages the enemy takes will be honorably treated and not put to death. You treat us nice and we treat you nice, essentially.

B] Hostages can be levered in the final peace settlement. 

However, we as readers already know that the Lannisters will never offer acceptable terms to the Starks, so the second point is invalid.

Further, we also know that Joffrey has already shown that he has no issue with executing hostages. So the first point is also invalid. 

Essentially Jaime is almost useless as a hostage. Unless he is ransomed to Tywin directly and immediately for real gains in terms of the war (either in exchange for supplies, hostages, or a military position), you're better off to just execute him - especially in response to the execution of Ned (to prove to Cersei you're not screwing around).

The way Robb treats Jaime (as someone he must hang on to no matter what, all the way to the end of the war) is the worst possible option. Not ransoming Jaime immediately means no tangible gains are generated, and not executing him after Ned is killed tells everyone that Robb is weak.

If Robb won't kill Jaime even after his own father has been murdered, then what do the Lannisters have to fear? As long as they have one precious hostage (i.e Sansa) they can apparently do whatever they want to anyone they take prisoner and know that Robb won't dare to do anything to Jaime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can even theorize how the war might have gone very differently if Robb executed Jaime upon hearing of Ned Starks' death. 

If he'd made a production of it, then he might have distracted his bannermen long enough for Stannis to send the letter to the Realm. This prevents the independence declaration and allows an alliance with Stannis. 

Also, whether he declared independence or not, Robb's killing of Jaime would have undoubtedly infuriated the Lannisters and driven Cersei's completely mad. This translates to mistakes, which could result in King's Landing getting well buttered by Stannis instead of the Lannister victory it was (i.e mad Cersei maybe kills Tyrion instead of letting him defend the city, or Tywin is so angry he forces a crossing at the fords and is not in position to defend it, or ect). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Jingo said:

Yes, it would have been a better option. 

The value of a hostage comes from the fact that if you have one you can assume that 

A] Any hostages the enemy takes will be honorably treated and not put to death. You treat us nice and we treat you nice, essentially.

B] Hostages can be levered in the final peace settlement. 

However, we as readers already know that the Lannisters will never offer acceptable terms to the Starks, so the second point is invalid.

Further, we also know that Joffrey has already shown that he has no issue with executing hostages. So the first point is also invalid. 

Essentially Jaime is almost useless as a hostage. Unless he is ransomed to Tywin directly and immediately for real gains in terms of the war (either in exchange for supplies, hostages, or a military position), you're better off to just execute him - especially in response to the execution of Ned (to prove to Cersei you're not screwing around).

The way Robb treats Jaime (as someone he must hang on to no matter what, all the way to the end of the war) is the worst possible option. Not ransoming Jaime immediately means no tangible gains are generated, and not executing him after Ned is killed tells everyone that Robb is weak.

If Robb won't kill Jaime even after his own father has been murdered, then what do the Lannisters have to fear? As long as they have one precious hostage (i.e Sansa) they can apparently do whatever they want to anyone they take prisoner and know that Robb won't dare to do anything to Jaime.

 

Much as I like Jaime's redemption story, I really do agree with you. Jaime's captivity didn't do Robb any favours whatsoever, he was better off killing him and be done with it. I'm sure Robb would have wanted to execute Jaime himself, but maybe he could have used Rickard Karstark's sword while doing it to appease the old man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Much as I like Jaime's redemption story, I really do agree with you. Jaime's captivity didn't do Robb any favours whatsoever, he was better off killing him and be done with it. I'm sure Robb would have wanted to execute Jaime himself, but maybe he could have used Rickard Karstark's sword while doing it to appease the old man.

I heavily disagree

If Jaime dies sansa will definitely be killed by cersei. If a man can't protect his own sister how can he protect his kingdom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James Steller said:

I see so many claims that Catelyn releasing Jaime was one of the big turning points in Robb's campaign. But what would the alternative have been?

Not releasing him... Especially after Robb lost the Karstarks and the Freys, Jaime was his very last card in the south. 

 

 

6 hours ago, James Steller said:

And sure, having Jaime dead means Catelyn can't release him later, which means Rickard Karstark stays loyal, but Robb still alienates the Freys, and the Red Wedding still happens except that the Karstarks and Brienne get killed or captured at the Red Wedding too. 

I dunno man, Bolton pulled the Red Wedding after Karstark deserted Robb, which fully cemented his demise. He might or might not have a part in it. And if he doesn't, there's no reason to believe Robb would go down anytime soon.

 

 

3 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

I heavily disagree

If Jaime dies sansa will definitely be killed by cersei. If a man can't protect his own sister how can he protect his kingdom. 

You'd be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. But it depends on when Jaime is executed. If he is executed right after Ned's execution, then Sansa is executed and probably King's Landing is lost to Stannis (or less likely Renly). As Robb is a target of both Stannis and Renly, he is not out of the woods. And the Lannisters are still in the field, twice as dangerous and starving for revenge.

Does it matter?

Theon still betrays Robb, the Ironborn still invade and occupy the North and Bran and Rickon are still captured and "killed." Which still makes Robb freaks out and sleeps with Jeyne Westerling and then marries her in an attempt to save her honor. Which still pisses off the Freys. Which makes them look for greener pastures.

And Roose Bolton is still an opportunistic evil schemer.

The Red Wedding was already well in the works while Jaime was still being held captive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, James Steller said:

And sure, having Jaime dead means Catelyn can't release him later, which means Rickard Karstark stays loyal, but Robb still alienates the Freys, and the Red Wedding still happens except that the Karstarks and Brienne get killed or captured at the Red Wedding too. 

If Robb keeps his words and marry a Frey girl (Roslin), Walder Frey wouldn't have any reasons to be mad, he has played his part before Robb broke the marriage pact.

As for the improvement, it would depend on the timing and Robb's choices post execution. If he does it right after Ned's execution, the immediate aftermath of Jaime's death is Sansa's death and a total war against the Lannisters. In this context, he would have no other choices but to focus on wiping out the Lannister and go full Tywin in the Westerlands, if he expects to win against them.

He should let the Baratheons brothers fight each other, keep Theon with him and inform Edmure of his plans. When Stannis takes the Iron Throne, he should bend the knee and go back North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, James Steller said:

I see so many claims that Catelyn releasing Jaime was one of the big turning points in Robb's campaign. But what would the alternative have been?

Let's assume that Jaime gets executed instead of released. Whether in response to Ned's execution or to give Rickard Karstark some vengeance for his sons, or both, but would Jaime being killed in cold blood have really been a better option?

If Jaime was killed, I daresay Tywin would want the Starks to suffer even worse than he did in the main story. And sure, having Jaime dead means Catelyn can't release him later, which means Rickard Karstark stays loyal, but Robb still alienates the Freys, and the Red Wedding still happens except that the Karstarks and Brienne get killed or captured at the Red Wedding too. 

Yes, I think keeping Jaime alive would be the best option. If he had Jaime and Tyrion, that would have been better but Jaime was a valuable hostage that he should have sent to the North to ensure that he could leverage Jaime probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Not really. But it depends on when Jaime is executed. If he is executed right after Ned's execution, then Sansa is executed and probably King's Landing is lost to Stannis (or less likely Renly). As Robb is a target of both Stannis and Renly, he is not out of the woods. And the Lannisters are still in the field, twice as dangerous and starving for revenge.

Does it matter?

Theon still betrays Robb, the Ironborn still invade and occupy the North and Bran and Rickon are still captured and "killed." Which still makes Robb freaks out and sleeps with Jeyne Westerling and then marries her in an attempt to save her honor. Which still pisses off the Freys. Which makes them look for greener pastures.

And Roose Bolton is still an opportunistic evil schemer.

The Red Wedding was already well in the works while Jaime was still being held captive.

If Robb's execution of Jaime leads to the capture of King's Landing by Stannis, the Lannisters are a complete joke and have already lost. All their claimants to the Throne are now dead and they are locked between two to four hostile armies (Robb and Stannis' armies at minimum, Renly's Tyrell army if Stannis didn't kill him, and possibly the Vale declaring for Renly when Littlefinger decides to climb his way up a little higher).

The only thing that they'll end up doing is getting completely obliterated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Jingo said:

If Robb's execution of Jaime leads to the capture of King's Landing by Stannis, the Lannisters are a complete joke and have already lost. All their claimants to the Throne are now dead and they are locked between two to four hostile armies (Robb and Stannis' armies at minimum, Renly's Tyrell army if Stannis didn't kill him, and possibly the Vale declaring for Renly when Littlefinger decides to climb his way up a little higher).

The only thing that they'll end up doing is getting completely obliterated.

The Freys and the Boltons might (probably would) still betray the Starks and the Tullys for Stannis if Robb still decides to overreact to the fake news of Bran and Rickon's death by wedding Jeyne Westerling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

The Freys and the Boltons might (probably would) still betray the Starks and the Tullys for Stannis if Robb still decides to overreact to the fake news of Bran and Rickon's death by wedding Jeyne Westerling.

Robb wouldn't be anywhere near Jeyne Westerling. 

The taking of the Crag took place after Renly had been killed and the Lannisters formed an alliance with the Tyrells.

In Dead!Jaime AU, Tywin and Cersei having gone ape wild changes their trajectory to the point that Robb likely would not even go to the Crag.

Tywin would be more easily baited to try to crush Robb's army, which probably results in them chasing each other around the Riverlands while Stannis takes advantage of Tywin's absence to storm King's Landing and put heads on spikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2021 at 10:59 PM, Daenerysthegreat said:

I heavily disagree

If Jaime dies sansa will definitely be killed by cersei. If a man can't protect his own sister how can he protect his kingdom. 

Sansa being in King's Landing doesn't reflect badly on Robb. And the Lannisters started it by executing Ned Stark at the Sept of Baelor. Plus, executing Jaime Lannister is one thing, but executing a harmless young woman for her brother's actions? The Lannisters already have bad PR to deal with, killing Sansa will only make them look worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Sansa being in King's Landing doesn't reflect badly on Robb. And the Lannisters started it by executing Ned Stark at the Sept of Baelor. Plus, executing Jaime Lannister is one thing, but executing a harmless young woman for her brother's actions? The Lannisters already have bad PR to deal with, killing Sansa will only make them look worse.

Ned Stark was charged with treason, which he publicly admitted to. Legally, the Lannisters were in the right to execute him after that. But executing a highborn knight - and the son of a powerful lord at that - after he's been captured in battle, is a completely different situation. It's viewed as extremely dishonourable, and basically taboo. You just don't do that to your highborn prisoners, unless it's specifically a hostage situation and you execute them in response to their own hostage being executed, a tit-for-tat situation. Which is what would happen if Jaime was executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

Ned Stark was charged with treason, which he publicly admitted to. Legally, the Lannisters were in the right to execute him after that. But executing a highborn knight - and the son of a powerful lord at that - after he's been captured in battle, is a completely different situation. It's viewed as extremely dishonourable, and basically taboo. You just don't do that to your highborn prisoners, unless it's specifically a hostage situation and you execute them in response to their own hostage being executed, a tit-for-tat situation. Which is what would happen if Jaime was executed.

Sure, and "legally" the Starks could argue that Ned's confession was false and only offered under fear that his daughter would be raped to death. 

Let's be real. Maybe in like, literally any other war in the entire history of Westeros people might view it as problematic for Robb to execute Jaime in response to Ned's execution given Ned's getting chopped up after confessing supposed treason. 

But in the specific case of Eddard Stark the court of public opinion already ruled in his favour long ago. As far as everyone in the entire world is concerned, Ned Stark is super honourable and has a sworn brotherhood with Robert Baratheon and would never betray him. Meanwhile Ned's accusers are Cersei "baby killer" Lannister who has a reputation for having murdered her husband's bastard children out of spite.

Between Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Joffrey the Lannister PR is so horrific that them not being ripped apart by a spontaneous peasant uprising is itself an example of Lannister plot armor. No one is going to look at Ned Stark's confession and say "Oh well, he admitted it didn't he lmao". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Sure, and "legally" the Starks could argue that Ned's confession was false and only offered under fear that his daughter would be raped to death. 

Yes, but that still doesn't justify executing an unarmed prisoner that had nothing to do with Ned's execution. As much as Robb probably wanted to do that, his sense of honour would never allow him to. This is the same man that executed one of his strongest and earliest supporters because he executed two unarmed Lannister prisoners.

12 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

But in the specific case of Eddard Stark the court of public opinion already ruled in his favour long ago. As far as everyone in the entire world is concerned, Ned Stark is super honourable and has a sworn brotherhood with Robert Baratheon and would never betray him.

You exaggerate. Sure, everyone in the North loves and respects him, and most highborn people know of his reputation for honour and honesty, but there's the whole mass of smallfolk outside of the North that don't really know much about him except the basics of who he is, i.e. a great northern lord that was King Robert's good friend. After he's executed, there's plenty of smallfolk that talk about Ned as if he was a traitor. We see this in a few different PoVs, but mostly Arya's. The smallfolk don't have the same social network that the nobility do; they don't know much about Ned's character. All they know is what the people they live near know, and if the official news coming from the capital and the king is that Ned Star was a traitor, than how are they supposed to know any different?

15 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Meanwhile Ned's accusers are Cersei "baby killer" Lannister who has a reputation for having murdered her husband's bastard children out of spite.

This is not common knowledge.

16 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Between Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Joffrey the Lannister PR is so horrific that them not being ripped apart by a spontaneous peasant uprising is itself an example of Lannister plot armor.

Well, that almost happened halfway through Clash.

16 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

No one is going to look at Ned Stark's confession and say "Oh well, he admitted it didn't he lmao". 

But many smallfolk did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

But executing a highborn knight - and the son of a powerful lord at that - after he's been captured in battle, is a completely different situation. It's viewed as extremely dishonourable, and basically taboo.

You sure?? The Reach Lords were shocked that he wasn't  executed ok sight, many of Robb's bannermen asked for his head. And the only reason the Westernmen believed he'd see another day was his valor as a high profile hostage.

No one ever at any point of the story claimed that it'd be against any kind of ancient tradition. Jaime was left alive out of pragmatism, not because it would be otherwise frowned upon.

 

 

5 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

This is the same man that executed one of his strongest and earliest supporters because he executed two unarmed Lannister prisoners

Because he had vow to protect and respect their rights... He can simply ignore that bit with Jaime.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Robb's story actually have improved if he'd executed managed to keep Jaime?

Yes. He will have something to bargain with.  Jaime will be his guarantee of a safe passage back to the north and a guarantee of no retaliation against his riverland allies from the Lannisters. 

Catelyn ruined his chances because she was acting like a mother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...