Why is the 'King in the North' idea so reviled?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

So many posters seem to label Robb and his bannermen idiots for taking up the idea of seperating from the south. Why is that? Take the Scots and English for example (the obvious similarity). You never hear people calling Robert the Bruce and other Scottish lords foolish and uncaring of their people's lives for trying to fight English control. And they didn't do that badly in the long run. Scotland had periods of freedom and subjecation before its own royal line became the kings of england, and they eventually became part of Great Britain of their own free will.

Why can't the North in westeros acheive a similar goal? When Robb marches south, he's never getting a better oppurtunity. His father has been killed-legitimate cause. The king has been murdered-thrown the seven kingdoms into confusion and civil war. Sure, he doesn't go about the war (apart from the military aspect) particularly well, gets lost in the political whirlwind and makes several key mistakes, but he COULD have won. Say Robb had crushed Tywin at rivverun, took casterly rock, sued for peace and returned to the North with it under his independent control, along with a few key allies (the tullys and arryns, for example). There's nothing special about the North which would force the south to put all their efforts into regaining it (Stannis would, but would he receive much support?), again similarly to scotland. So long as the Starks stay out of the south's business for the most part, there's no reason why they couldn't coexist in a similar way to Dorne.

Eventually the North might be retaken, but thats hardly a reason to give up on the idea. If a nation (particularly one as large as the north and with little real value) wishes independence for long enough, they are likely to get it, the same way Scotland did irl.

I propose that Robb Stark was a hero, and considering he was only a 16 year old boy, a great leader.

[VorianGR]

There's nothing special about the North which would force the south to put all their efforts into regaining it (Stannis would, but would he receive much support?), again similarly to scotland. So long as the Starks stay out of the south's business for the most part, there's no reason why they couldn't coexist in a similar way to Dorne.

Robb also claimed the Riverlands, a profitable area that essentially cuts off the Vale from the Rest of the 7 kingdoms

[Ser Justin the Tall]

So many posters seem to label Robb and his bannermen idiots for taking up the idea of seperating from the south. Why is that? Take the Scots and English for example (the obvious similarity). You never hear people calling Robert the Bruce and other Scottish lords foolish and uncaring of their people's lives for trying to fight English control. And they didn't do that badly in the long run. Scotland had periods of freedom and subjecation before its own royal line became the kings of england, and they eventually became part of Great Britain of their own free will.

Why can't the North in westeros acheive a similar goal? When Robb marches south, he's never getting a better oppurtunity. His father has been killed-legitimate cause. The king has been murdered-thrown the seven kingdoms into confusion and civil war. Sure, he doesn't go about the war (apart from the military aspect) particularly well, gets lost in the political whirlwind and makes several key mistakes, but he COULD have won. Say Robb had crushed Tywin at rivverun, took casterly rock, sued for peace and returned to the North with it under his independent control, along with a few key allies (the tullys and arryns, for example). There's nothing special about the North which would force the south to put all their efforts into regaining it (Stannis would, but would he receive much support?), again similarly to scotland. So long as the Starks stay out of the south's business for the most part, there's no reason why they couldn't coexist in a similar way to Dorne.

Eventually the North might be retaken, but thats hardly a reason to give up on the idea. If a nation (particularly one as large as the north and with little real value) wishes independence for long enough, they are likely to get it, the same way Scotland did irl.

I propose that Robb Stark was a hero, and considering he was only a 16 year old boy, a great leader.

To propose that Robb was great leader is a bit of a stretch. He may have won battles with sword and shield, but he also made too many critical errors in managing his supposed kingdom. Robb pissed off his biggest ally and lost a large portion of his army, beheaded his most loyal bannerman and lost another portion of his army, let his biggest chip (Jaime Lannister) slip through his fingers, lost his castle and the north all through making poor decisions. These are not the traits of a great leader, these are the traits of an ambitious youth presented with the right situation, but making poor decisions. Now Ned could have been argued as a better leader during the previous war and Tywin Lannister is probably the Westeros epitome of a great leader. I am not arguing that these two people are the so called good characters of the story, but as Tywin Lannister said "some battles are won with the sword and some are won with the pen." Robb did not understand this concept and in the end lost his head for it.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Robb also claimed the Riverlands, a profitable area that essentially cuts off the Vale from the Rest of the 7 kingdoms

Yes, he'd have had to give the riverlands up probably.

To propose that Robb was great leader is a bit of a stretch. He may have won battles with sword and shield, but he also made too many critical errors in managing his supposed kingdom. Robb pissed off his biggest ally and lost a large portion of his army, beheaded his most loyal bannerman and lost another portion of his army, let his biggest chip (Jaime Lannister) slip through his fingers, lost his castle and the north all through making poor decisions. These are not the traits of a great leader, these are the traits of an ambitious youth presented with the right situation, but making poor decisions. Now Ned could have been argued as a better leader during the previous war and Tywin Lannister is probably the Westeros epitome of a great leader. I am not arguing that these two people are the so called good characters of the story, but as Tywin Lannister said "some battles are won with the sword and some are won with the pen." Robb did not understand this concept and in the end lost his head for it.

He was 16. Everything you discuss is completely acceptable given his lack of maturity. I call him a great leader because despite this he seemed to have a natural grasp of military tactics, as well as charisma. Nothing else was really to be expected. Besides that, some of your criticisms are unwarranted, ie: the beheading of Karstark (he had no real choice in the matter), Jaime lannister (the fault was hardly his), losing the north to the greyjoys (how exactly could he have prepared for and expected that? All he could've done was to divide his army, which is always a foolish move. He had to defeat one enemy before moving onto the next. I see no poor decisions there in any case).

Furthermore, the main point as that the idea of being 'king in the North' isn't as unrealistic as people say, and he shouldn't be attacked for attempting it.

[Errant Bard]

To suggest Robb was fighting for independence is disingenuous. He was striking south because Ned had been taken, and afterwards his only goal was to reach KL and beat the Lannisters... for vengeance's sake. Why do you think he went past Moat Caillin or sold his family to Freys? It was certainly not for the tactical advantages of fighting in enemy land beyond his impregnable fortresses.

As for the "if a Nation wishes for independence long enough", that was actually funny considering the North is never presented as a nation, and even less as wanting independence. The "King in the North" is raised because they actually don't really know who to submit to, so they go on their own, it's no big freeeeeeedom thing, it's an utilitarian decision, and it's limited to a handful of nobles who were already independent for all intents and purposes before the war anyway.

Whatever, he had a shot a it, lost, refused to see he lost, and was made to see with crossbows. He's about as heroic as Balon Greyjoy, or Arianne Martell, or Renly Baratheon.

[Alexia]

Beheading Karstark was a fool move. He could have sent him to the Wall at the very least. He should have figured something else out, rather than avenging his 16 year old "honor", because it lost him a major banner house.

As for Jaime Lannister, yes, he did hold some of the blame. But Jaime should have been exchanged for his sister long before. Sansa could have been used to negotiate a powerful military alliance, in addition to the Frey alliance, which he realizes too late. For one thing, an offer of her for Lord Robert might have brought in the Vale. There were also the Tyrells.

Losing the North and his brothers was 100% him. He insisted on sending Theon Greyjoy to treat with Lord Balon, putting his "wisdom" over that of both his father and King Robert. I could see what Theon was from the first chapter when he played football wtih a dead man's head.

For the Freys, his own father (naive, politically inept Ned) left the girl he was in love with because politics demanded.

Robb sucks at politics. He absolutely sucked. He may have had the makings of a great leader but he was not a great leader at the time he died.

[Lord Mord]

Robb wasn't the man for it, it wasn't the time. And, hell, I don't know that I shouldn't have said the same about Robert the Bruce or other Scots, if their cases were presented to me in a similar way as Robb's. I'm not terribly fond of violence as it is, for vengeance's sake least of all, but to win a crown for oneself is not much better.

That's what Robb was about in this particular venture, blood or gold, and whatever the merits of warfare otherwise, these are certainly reprehensible reasons for dragging your people along into the slaughter.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

To suggest Robb was fighting for independence is disingenuous. He was striking south because Ned had been taken, and afterwards his only goal was to reach KL and beat the Lannisters... for vengeance's sake. Why do you think he went past Moat Caillin or sold his family to Freys? It was certainly not for the tactical advantages of fighting in enemy land beyond his impregnable fortresses.

As for the "if a Nation wishes for independence long enough", that was actually funny considering the North is never presented as a nation, and even less as wanting independence. The "King in the North" is raised because they actually don't really know who to submit to, so they go on their own, it's no big freeeeeeedom thing, and it's limited to a handful of nobles who were already independent for all intents and purposes before the war anyway.

Whatever, he had a shot a it, lost, refused to see he lost, and was made to see with crossbows. He's about as heroic as Balon Greyjoy.

Sure, Robb went to war because of Ned, but once his bannermen proclaimed him to be the King of the North that instantly became the whole basis of his campaign. Hence why he received no support from either Stannis or Renly.

They weren't independent. Those nobles were loyal to their lord (the starks) who were in turn loyal to the king. Obviously they weren't independent. I'm not sure what your argument here is. We don't see the common people much (in the north anyway), so we can't form an opinion there.

I don't really want to get onto a debate about Robb's faults, i just made a passing remark that i thought given his age he was impressive. Its not really the point of the thread.

Beheading Karstark was a fool move. He could have sent him to the Wall at the very least. He should have figured something else out, rather than avenging his 16 year old "honor", because it lost him a major banner house..

He was brought up by Ned. Beheading Karstark was hardly surprising. On the flip side of what you say, letting him off would've appeared weak, given Karstark blatantly disobeyed him.

As for Jaime Lannister, yes, he did hold some of the blame. But Jaime should have been exchanged for his sister long before. Sansa could have been used to negotiate a powerful military alliance, in addition to the Frey alliance, which he realizes too late. For one thing, an offer of her for Lord Robert might have brought in the Vale. There were also the Tyrells.

Jaime was worth far more than Sansa. The lannisters had two main points of a trident, Tywin and Jaime. With both off the field, the lannisters are effectively finished, and would most likely sue for peace. The oppurtunity for this came at Rivverun, but if Jaime had already been exchanged as you suggest, the Lannisters would still have posed a threat.

Losing the North and his brothers was 100% him. He insisted on sending Theon Greyjoy to treat with Lord Balon, putting his "wisdom" over that of both his father and King Robert. I could see what Theon was from the first chapter when he played football wtih a dead man's head.

He would've lost the North whether he sent Theon to Balon or not. Its irrelevent really (though still a poor decision). Remember he was 16, and theon was his friend.

For the Freys, his own father (naive, politically inept Ned) left the girl he was in love with because politics demanded.

He was 16.

Robb sucks at politics. He absolutely sucked. He may have had the makings of a great leader but he was not a great leader at the time he died

Agreed. I don't think he had a chance to learn politics.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Robb wasn't the man for it, it wasn't the time. And, hell, I don't know that I shouldn't have said the same about Robert the Bruce or other Scots, if their cases were presented to me in a similar way as Robb's. I'm not terribly fond of violence as it is, for vengeance's sake least of all, but to win a crown for oneself is not much better.

That's what Robb was about in this particular venture, blood or gold, and whatever the merits of warfare otherwise, these are certainly reprehensible reasons for dragging your people along into the slaughter.

So Robb should've cowered in Winterfell as his father was murdered, and his sister abused, taking orders from the same people who did this? I don't blame Robb at all for marching.

[Alexia]

Jaime was not worth more than the marriage potential Sansa represented. If he had the Vale with him, he might have won that war. If the Tyrells had not supported Lannister, even if they only stayed neutral, Stannis would have taken KL and the Lannisters would have been finished.

As for Theon, he has bad taste in friends. Balon wasn't going to attack Winterfell and the other Ironborn seem contemptuous of killing children. He personally destroyed his own cause through that. I struggle to pick the worse decision: sending Theon or marrying Jeyne.

He's 16, yes. And I don't think he's impressive by a long shot...I think he's 16 and acts it.

[Errant Bard]

Not blaming is not quite the same as praising. Yes, he should have "cowered" while his father was confessing being a traitor, instead of trying to avenge his pride with the blood of thousands.

There is a big difference in a guy fighting for the people, sacrificing thousands so the fate of the rest improves, and a guy fighting for a personal reason, sacrificing thousands so his own pride is soothed, and nothing else.

[Errant Bard]

They weren't independent. Those nobles were loyal to their lord (the starks) who were in turn loyal to the king. Obviously they weren't independent.

Name a single order the Starks followed when they didn't want to.

[Alexia]

Incidentally, the hypocrisy of the whole King in the North thing was an absolute riot. Robb plans to kill Joffrey even though he acknowledges him the rightful King. But because Joffrey is the rightful King, it would be dishonorable to declare for Stannis or Renly. So instead, he solves the problem by declaring for King himself.

Gag me. :rolleyes:

[Daena the Defiant]

So Robb should've cowered in Winterfell as his father was murdered, and his sister abused, taking orders from the same people who did this? I don't blame Robb at all for marching.

Incidentally, Sansa's abuse and/or captivity was never used as a causus belli by Robb. When Sansa was pretty much stranded in Kings Landing, Robb responded by cutting her out of the will.

Indeed, he accused Catelyn of treason because she released Jaime in exchange for Arya and Sansa, because they were the next heirs.

Robb may have been justified in many readers' minds for acting to secede from authority of the Lannister occupied Iron Throne, but don't flatter him by suggesting he did so to protest his sisters' status.

[oxmix]

The only thing that ever held the seven kingdoms together was dragons.

Some knees do not bend easily.

[The SmilingKnight]

I dont think there was a realistic chance of getting the Vale even with Sansa. Not with Lysa there as she was.

[SFDanny]

Incidentally, Sansa's abuse and/or captivity was never used as a causus belli by Robb. When Sansa was pretty much stranded in Kings Landing, Robb responded by cutting her out of the will.

I'd differ here a bit.

First, the queen must release my sisters and provide them with transport by sea from to King's Landing to White Harbor. It is to be understood that Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey Baratheon is at an end.... (ACoK 83 US Hardback)

This is from Robb's first attempt at a peace. Clearly, Robb does use his sister's safety as a causus belli in his continuing war against the Lannisters. He doesn't set off from Winterfell with his bannermen mainly because of his sister's safety, but it should be noted that at the time it is only Ned who is under direct threat of death from the Lannisters.

It should also be noted that Robb cuts Sansa out of her place as his heir because she is controlled by the Lannisters. It is not because Robb is unconcerned for her welfare. He just has little he can do other than continue to try to win his war.

Indeed, he accused Catelyn of treason because she released Jaime in exchange for Arya and Sansa, because they were the next heirs.

Robb may have been justified in many readers' minds for acting to secede from authority of the Lannister occupied Iron Throne, but don't flatter him by suggesting he did so to protest his sisters' status.

At the point Catelyn releases Jaime, Robb is already King in the North, so proclaimed by both the nobles of the North and the Riverlands. He alone has the authority to make peace with his enemies. What Catelyn does, while both understandable and for the best reasons, is usurp his royal authority. It is treason in the strictest sense of the word. Not that Robb would ever seriously punish his mother for her actions.

And again, I think it's wrong to say he did not set out in his campaign, in part, to get his sisters back from Lannister control. It is Ned's life that is in the most immediate danger, but that does not mean Robb is unconcerned about Sansa and Arya.

[Errant Bard]

He knows Sansa is an hostage. The first letter make no secret of it. So he knows she'll die when he reaches KL, because he will not exchange her for anyone.

[Lord Mord]

Ser_not_appearing_yet,

So Robb should've cowered in Winterfell as his father was murdered, and his sister abused, taking orders from the same people who did this? I don't blame Robb at all for marching.

Ah, sweet. The good old false dichotomy! It has been a while.

Robb didn't have to take responsibility for his father, who is a grown man and made his own bed. Even if he did have to take responsibility for him, that doesn't mean that the Karstarks and the Boltons and the Mormonts and the Umbers and the Knotts and the Liddles and the Reeds and the Glovers and the Hornwoods and the ... and the ... and the ... and all the smallfolk should have to shed all their blood, just because Ned was foolish enough to go south and tangle with Lannisters.

They shouldn't all have to die to protect Sansa, either.

As for "not taking orders from them," that's the lamest one of all. Robb didn't have to take orders from them at all. 1) He could have run the gauntlet by refusing their orders, which at least puts moral responsibility for their brinigng war solely on the Lannisters, who, in turn, could have broken before they did much damage in the North, as their major allies found and pressed weaknesses within, or 2) he could have resigned Winterfell, which would have spared his lords and smallfolk from dying in a stupid war, because the Northern opposition to Joffrey's crown was, as far as he could make it so, gone.

He chose to stick it out as Lord of Winterfell because he felt like it. He chose to disobey the Lannisters because his pride was pricked and his heart ached. He decided that he didn't want to chance losing Winterfell by just sticking around up north, so he forced folks to march south. He didn't feel like, he didn't want -- it was all about him, and it was all to protect privileges that he certainly wouldn't have countenanced anyone claiming within his kingdom. Revenge? Hah, that belongs to the crown! Disobeying orders, secession? Oh, brother, that would have gone over well ...

I'm not saying Robb or his bannermen are bad guys. In their time and place, it's not unreasonable for them to imagine that cementing their particular asses to particular chairs is somehow good for everyone, and that they should grieve and desire vengeance makes them human and certainly understandable.

The distinction being made here is that Robb's human weaknesses shouldn't consume the whole kingdom, or at least not without his catching heat for spilling a lot of blood, blood, moreover, of a lot of hapless farmers and crofters who just wanted to go back to their families.

[Ran]

Tthe Targaryens did continue to sit their throne for 150-odd years after the dragons. The realm hung together pretty well, Blackfyre rebellions aside (and by the sounds of it, it really seems like the first one was the really serious one, and most of the rest of the Blackfyre Pretenders caused some but not kingdom-wide damage).

I don't think Robb deciding to crown himself was a problem. I think the strategic error lay in accepting the riverlords as vassals, however. If he could withdraw beyond Moat Cailin, I'm sure the North could have remained independent. But as soon as he committed to holding the riverlands, the game was practically up. If he couldn't force an early cease to hostilities, it would only be a matter of time before someone consolidated power and came storming at him with three, four, even five times the numbers that he had on hand.

I don't really consider him a hypocrite for accepting a crown. He was stuck in a very difficult position. He is a product of his culture and his time, and the idea of just meekly sitting there doing nothing went very much against the grain of the social, political, and cultural imperatives that motivated him.

ETA: The idea of separating his people from a realm to be ruled by the future Aerys the III (as Tyrion later dubbed Joffrey) was a pretty prescient notion, BTW. Note that Robb was willing to make peace, and entered negotiations to that en, and while his opening offer was high, that's generally how you go about negotiating. He was, of course, aware at that time that he was going to make a mess of the west and strengthen his hand thereby.