Robb's worst sin

[The Commentator]

1 hour ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Robb's worst sin was not "betraying" the Freys enough. /cdn-cgi/mirage/9e2abca898daf80e730b034dde4f3e881a86bebfc7507f1e08781367eaa971d8/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_smoking.gif

Separate the sin from the offense that got him in trouble. Sin is a moral trespass. It’s not the cause of his fall. It was the offense of oath-breaking.  Of course killing Rickard K made him weaker but it’s a distant cause.  
 

 

[Nathan Stark]

48 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Yes. The point of his war to free his father and sisters, was it not? And yet it apparently doesn't occur to him that Joffrey isn't to be trusted with hostages with Ned's execution, or that his battles lead to Sansa getting beaten. What do you think would happen if after Oxcross Ser Boros slapped Sansa with his armored glove and she died from bleeding on the brain (think Home Alone where Marley hits both Harry and Marv with his shovel, which would have been fatal in real life), or Joffrey executed her just because he felt like it? He had Ned executed because he felt like it. One would think that Robb would have been a lot more focused on getting his sisters back, but he doesn't even try.

So Robb should try to win the war by not winning any battles? Lol.

He did try. That's why he was fighting a war, to avenge Ned and get his sisters back. But the reality is that Robb cannot effect or change how the Lannisters treat Sansa. He had Jaime as a hostage, who was much too valuable to trade to anybody. 

Quote

What do you think would happen if after Oxcross Ser Boros slapped Sansa with his armored glove and she died from bleeding on the brain 

I think Jaime would have been promptly executed and his head sent to Cersei and Tyrion. That's supposing the Lannisters saw fit to let it be known Sansa had died. Either way, Robb cannot effect what Joffrey or Ser Boros Blount does or does not do to his sister. It is unreasonable to expect him to.

The argument you are making, that Robb should let fear of Sansa's mistreatment at the hands of the Lannisters effect his military decisions and diplomacy is ridiculous.

[Angel Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

 

He did try. That's why he was fighting a war, to avenge Ned and get his sisters back. But the reality is that Robb cannot effect or change how the Lannisters treat Sansa. He had Jaime as a hostage, who was much too valuable to trade to anybody. 

I think Jaime would have been promptly executed and his head sent to Cersei and Tyrion. That's supposing the Lannisters saw fit to let it be known Sansa had died. Either way, Robb cannot effect what Joffrey or Ser Boros Blount does or does not do to his sister. It is unreasonable to expect him to.

 

Couldn't he? Anyone knows that the Lannisters aren't to be trusted with kid hostages (Rhaenys and Aegon, the Tarbeck boy), or hostages in general (Elia Martell).

[Nathan Stark]

21 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Couldn't he? Anyone knows that the Lannisters aren't to be trusted with kid hostages (Rhaenys and Aegon, the Tarbeck boy), or hostages in general (Elia Martell).

Yes, everyone knows the Lannisters are disreputable scumbags, but again, that's not something Robb has any ability to change. The best way to save Sansa is to defeat the Lannisters in the field and force a surrender, while keeping Jaime as a hostage to ensure Tywin's good behavior. That is all Robb could do in this situation to save Sansa. That is what he was doing. And even if Robb had the ability to "keep tabs" on Sansa in Kings Landing, which he does not, nothing he learned there would have changed anything. He cannot help her from Riverrun. He can beat Tywin in battle. And that was his focus, as it should have been.

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

Yes. The point of his war to free his father and sisters, was it not? And yet it apparently doesn't occur to him that Joffrey isn't to be trusted with hostages with Ned's execution, or that his battles lead to Sansa getting beaten. What do you think would happen if after Oxcross Ser Boros slapped Sansa with his armored glove and she died from bleeding on the brain (think Home Alone where Marley hits both Harry and Marv with his shovel, which would have been fatal in real life), or Joffrey executed her just because he felt like it? He had Ned executed because he felt like it. One would think that Robb would have been a lot more focused on getting his sisters back, but he doesn't even try.

He can't really focus on getting his sisters back when he has a kingdom to defend and at least one dangerous enemy army and Harrenhal and other castles between him and King's Landing. 

[Angel Eyes]

12 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Yes, everyone knows the Lannisters are disreputable scumbags, but again, that's not something Robb has any ability to change. The best way to save Sansa is to defeat the Lannisters in the field and force a surrender, while keeping Jaime as a hostage to ensure Tywin's good behavior. That is all Robb could do in this situation to save Sansa. That is what he was doing. And even if Robb had the ability to "keep tabs" on Sansa in Kings Landing, which he does not, nothing he learned there would have changed anything. He cannot help her from Riverrun. He can beat Tywin in battle. And that was his focus, as it should have been.

He could smash the hell out of it but not bring it to its knees. Perhaps, if he'd tried harder to save Sansa his mother wouldn't have cost him a bargaining chip by freeing Jaime.

[Nathan Stark]

16 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

He could smash the hell out of it but not bring it to its knees. Perhaps, if he'd tried harder to save Sansa his mother wouldn't have cost him a bargaining chip by freeing Jaime.

Robb was doing a pretty bang up job bringing Tywin to his knees. The Battle of Oxcross was the only time in the war up to that point where an entire army completely ceased to exist. The entire campaign in the West was about forcing Tywin to move further away from Kings Landing so he'd be unable to defend it. The reason it didn't work was because the Battle of the Fords forced by Edmure delayed Tywin long enough to get word of the impending assault on Kings Landing. Robb's plan to bring the Lannisters to their knees and force a surrender was sound. It was undone by events largely unforseen by anybody and through poor communication with Edmure. Robb defeating the Lannisters outright was always a strong possibility until the Lannister victory in Kings Landing.

26 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

if he'd tried harder to save Sansa his mother wouldn't have cost him a bargaining chip by freeing Jaime.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. 

[Angel Eyes]

7 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Robb was doing a pretty bang up job bringing Tywin to his knees. The Battle of Oxcross was the only time in the war up to that point where an entire army completely ceased to exist. The entire campaign in the West was about forcing Tywin to move further away from Kings Landing so he'd be unable to defend it. The reason it didn't work was because the Battle of the Fords forced by Edmure delayed Tywin long enough to get word of the impending assault on Kings Landing. Robb's plan to bring the Lannisters to their knees and force a surrender was sound. It was undone by events largely unforseen by anybody and through poor communication with Edmure. Robb defeating the Lannisters outright was always a strong possibility until the Lannister victory in Kings Landing.

Right; so he's leading Tywin on a merry... and then what? Which way is he trying to go? He came from the east; if he goes west, he runs into Lannisport. Could he take Lannisport? He goes south, he runs into the Tyrells (not allies). He goes north, he runs into the Greyjoys.

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

7 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Right; so he's leading Tywin on a merry... and then what? Which way is he trying to go? He came from the east; if he goes west, he runs into Lannisport. Could he take Lannisport? He goes south, he runs into the Tyrells (not allies). He goes north, he runs into the Greyjoys.

Well yeah, he couldn't go right for King's Landing, he had other strategic necessities and priorities. 

[astarkchoice]

25 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Right; so he's leading Tywin on a merry... and then what? Which way is he trying to go? He came from the east; if he goes west, he runs into Lannisport. Could he take Lannisport? He goes south, he runs into the Tyrells (not allies). He goes north, he runs into the Greyjoys.

Based on robbs speech he meant to have tywin chase him into the west , his force was all cavalry and tywins a mix of foot and cavalry thus slower. ( if they stay together) Robb wanted to double back behind them once they found a suitable defensible spot to  either bloody tywin should he try and force whatever stronghold robb chose  or bottle him up if he refused battle! 

[Nathan Stark]

42 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Right; so he's leading Tywin on a merry... and then what? Which way is he trying to go? He came from the east; if he goes west, he runs into Lannisport. Could he take Lannisport? He goes south, he runs into the Tyrells (not allies). He goes north, he runs into the Greyjoys.

Robb doesn't need to take Lannisport, though he might have been able to if that was really his focus. The one and only objective here is to isolate Kings Landing by keeping Tywin hold up in the West. The only reason the Lannisters won the Battle of the Blackwater was because Tywin reinforced them. Without his help and the Tyrell army with him, Joffrey, Cersie and Tyrion would be rotting on spikes, and Robb would have Stannis to deal with, which he preffered to begin with. 

As to the Tyrells, if they had happened upon Robb before Tywin, I suspect they would have joined up with him. After all, Robb was winning at the time, and the Tyrells want to be on the winning side. But unfortunately, they ran into Tywin's forces who were headed to Kings Landing first.

[EggBlue]

3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

He could smash the hell out of it but not bring it to its knees. Perhaps, if he'd tried harder to save Sansa his mother wouldn't have cost him a bargaining chip by freeing Jaime.

honestly, his mother was being unreasonable from the beginning. after Jaimie's capture and Ned's death, before Robb was named king , she thought it was a good idea to trade Jaimie with her daughters although at that point other houses had lost sons and men trying to save their lord who had died regardless! I mean, isn't that seriously delusional and selfish thinking?  that must be why Robb stopped listening to her even though he so desperately needed an adult's counsel who was without a doubt on his side.

[Many-Faced Votary]

I don't think that Cat's impassioned plea for peace reflected poorly on her. I don't deny that there were reasons for the North to reject the king on the Iron Throne at that point, but the fact that fifteen-year-old Robb was crowned was a tragedy (and ultimately, a huge one) for multiple reasons, not a triumph.

It's awfully similar to the sunk cost fallacy to frame it in that way: We've faced all this death, so let's continue warring and cause much more death!

[Nathan Stark]

12 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

honestly, his mother was being unreasonable from the beginning. after Jaimie's capture and Ned's death, before Robb was named king , she thought it was a good idea to trade Jaimie with her daughters although at that point other houses had lost sons and men trying to save their lord who had died regardless! I mean, isn't that seriously delusional and selfish thinking?  that must be why Robb stopped listening to her even though he so desperately needed an adult's counsel who was without a doubt on his side.

No, it's not delusional or selfish to want to see an end to the fighting. Ellaria Sand makes a very similar argument in AFfC. Ultimately, Catelyn is right that defeating the Lannisters won't bring Ned or Rickard Karstark's sons or anybody else back. The problem with Cat's argument for peace is not that she is selfish or delusional, but that there are multiple claimants to the Iron Throne, so who do you make peace with? Joffrey can be ruled out for obvious reasons, but first Renly, then Stannis, declare their intent to take the Iron Throne. To make peace with one of them is to make an enemy of the other. There were reasons why suing for peace was impractical at the end of A Game of Thromes, but it is not because Catelyn was selfish or delusional.

[EggBlue]

10 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

No, it's not delusional or selfish to want to see an end to the fighting. Ellaria Sand makes a very similar argument in AFfC. Ultimately, Catelyn is right that defeating the Lannisters won't bring Ned or Rickard Karstark's sons or anybody else back. The problem with Cat's argument for peace is not that she is selfish or delusional, but that there are multiple claimants to the Iron Throne, so who do you make peace with? Joffrey can be ruled out for obvious reasons, but first Renly, then Stannis, declare their intent to take the Iron Throne. To make peace with one of them is to make an enemy of the other. There were reasons why suing for peace was impractical at the end of A Game of Thromes, but it is not because Catelyn was selfish or delusional.

to be clear, the desire for peace is not what sounds selfish or delusional to me. but to think in that particular situation it was an option to make peace with Joffrey of all people was indeed delusional. and her proposal lacking any plan beyond saving her daughters sounded selfish which makes it completely understandable for Karstark to call her out on that. at that point Tywin and Jaimie had broken the King's peace, Joffrey supported them and executed Ned, warden of the North, with a very Aerys-like rationale. they had already fought a war and lost even more people. and what was Cat's proposal? let's trade one of the guys who has created this mess with my daughters and go home! if they made peace with Joffrey at that point, they got no justice and could have been easily undermined again considering what Joffrey could pull with their overlord and get away with it, and to think they could trade hostages with Joffrey and swear fealty to another king was something Joffrey would've never allowed which was easy to see. 

I agree with @Many-Faced Votary that Robb's coronation was a tragedy and doomed him from the beginning. what with his crown, he lost the option of an easy alliance with Stannis or Renly. 

but I absolutely do not agree that Ellaria's argument is similar to Cat's . simply because the situation differs by a mile. Martells and Sand Snakes are looking for revenge for something that happened 20 years ago and something that happened during a legal trial and the murderers are already dead. moreover, Ellaria's speech happens during a time of peace where Tommen Baratheon is the only king with any power (Stan had fled at that point) , and Tommen Baratheon has not done any injustice, unlike Joff. meanwhile, Northern houses were looking for justice, and that only turned into revenge when Karstark killed the Lannister boys. 

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:40 PM, The Gizzard of Oz said:

Robb Stark's worst sin is not the murder of Rickard Karstark.  It was his betrayal of House Frey.  He broke his oath to the Freys because he wanted Jeyne Westerling.  He followed the calling of his heart instead of doing what he had sworn to do.  This is far from a minor sin.  Robb broke what is the equivalent of a contract and the other party is entitled to compensation.  The cheated party is also entitled to inflict Robb with punitive damages. 

https://slate.com/business/2013/06/game-of-thrones-economics-red-wedding-robb-stark-and-breach-of-trust-in-marriage-alliances.html

 

Robb Stark was the stronger party and punishing him was beyond the capabilities of the Freys.  An ambush like the red wedding was the only means the Freys had to punish Robb.  It was also the price requested by Lord Tywin before he allows the rebel lords Walder and Roose to win their way back to peace with King Joffrey.  Seen from this view, what Walder decided is perfectly understandable.  Roose had his own reason and even they can be justified. 

The Starks should have given more than they did.  Edmure was not enough to repay the Freys after what Robb had done.  The Starks might have given up some land to the Freys and married Cat to one of Walder's older boys to placate them.  

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The Starks should have given more than they did.  Edmure was not enough to repay the Freys after what Robb had done.  The Starks might have given up some land to the Freys and married Cat to one of Walder's older boys to placate them.  

When the marriage pact was negotiated, Robb was heir to a lord paramount. Edmure was an actual lord paramount.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The Starks should have given more than they did.  Edmure was not enough to repay the Freys after what Robb had done.  The Starks might have given up some land to the Freys and married Cat to one of Walder's older boys to placate them.  

Even if this is true, which it's not, it was up to the Freys whether or not they took the deal. When Robb offered the Edmure marriage, they could have said "no, screw you". They didn't. They took the deal. They got what they wanted - the marriage to Edmure. Then they murdered Robb.

The Red Wedding is indefensible no matter how much you twist yourself in knots trying to defend it.

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

Robb may actually have avenged Stevron's death if he had killed Black Walder like he wanted, if the theory about him is true.

[Hugorfonics]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

When the marriage pact was negotiated, Robb was heir to a lord paramount. Edmure was an actual lord paramount.

He was also heir