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

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

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.

As said before, I don't want to start a Robb debate. Suffice to say i think he was a charismatic young 16 year old, with natural military ability, and the potential to learn how to be a politician. He also had some bad advise. Btw, Winterfell would've been taken by Bolton sooner or later, so Theon didn't matter.

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.

This is laughable. Are you suggesting that the arresting and executing of a nation's leader is insufficient grounds for war in the medieval time period? Besides, the moral question isn't part of my argument, the real argument is whether or not the idea of being 'king in the north' was possible.

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.

How on earth can anyone 'fight for the people' without having a referendum on what the people want? This is a quite ridiculous line of argument tbh, and quite irrelevant to my OP.

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

I expect there were plenty. Unfortunately i don't have the full and complete history of westeros sitting on my table.

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.

I sympathise with Robb here. Certainly, the logical answer was for him to declare for Stannis or Renly, however in doing this he must forsake his claim to being king in the north. However, the only reason his bannermen ride with him is because of his claim. Therefore he gains nothing.

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.

The actions of his father? Robb knows his father would not commit treason. Everything he knows comes from Ned. He also greatly distrusts the lannisters. Its not hard to come to the conclusion that Ned has been set up. His decision to march was obvious. What i find ridiculous is your follow up in that paragraph. You do realise that the only reason Robb declares himself as king in the north is because his bannermen (most of them) want that very thing? Every single branch house who follows Robb into battle does so out of a desire for independence from the south, its OBVIOUS. Robb is a 16 year old boy, a child, he is hardly capable of forcing anyone into obeying him. Robb's campaign is therefore the only genuinely 'whole' (as in with the participants genuinely fighting for something they believe in) campaign in the series. It is completely the opposite to what you say.

1. Robb wants revenge for his father.

2. The only way he can acheive this is with the help of his bannermen.

3. His bannermen will only follow Robb, a child, in a dangerous and bloody war if there is a carrot.

4. That carrot is seperation from the south.

Its a simple process, and not one Robb could've avoided (unless he decided to stay at home, but lets face it, no way was that happening irrelevent of whether it was morally right). I don't particularly care about the moral issues, though I've addressed some earlier in the post, but i will say that Robb's war, in a medieval period, was higher on the justified scale of things than unjustified.

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.

OMG. SOMEONE AGREED WITH ME.

[Lord Mord]

Ran,

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.

Yes, but I don't think that he should get the benefit of hindsight. He was undertaking a massive gamble with, to put it mildly, someone else's money.

Note that Robb was willing to make peace [...]

Sure, but in a similar vein, I could hold up a liquor store. The police surround me at gunpoint. I say, "Hey! I'm willing to make peace! I don't want anyone to get hurt!" I mean, sure I want peace. I don't want me to get hurt, do I? Now, I don't think you're saying that his willingness to make peace means that Robb did nothing wrong, but I just want to make sure that gets spelled out.

[Lord Mord]

Ser_not_appearing_yet,

The actions of his father?

Yes. Going south. Thinking he could play the game of thrones and stay above the it all.

He also greatly distrusts the lannisters.

It's not inconceivable that Lord Bolton greatly distrusted Eddard Stark. Unlikely, but not impossible. So, the Dreadfort could raise its banners against the Starks, and that's cool because of the distrust?

Its not hard to come to the conclusion that Ned has been set up.

It's not hard to come to any conclusion that suits one's preconceptions. It's not impossible, or, given the way that politics corrupts, even at all unthinkable that Ned could have committed actual treason in the south, but do you think Robb would have listened either way? He wasn't acting out of absolute knowledge -- he was acting on the instinct of love for and faith in his father. At our level of existence, that's usually not a problem, but if it led to willful murder, we would say that was a crime.

When it leads Robb to open revolt, why is it any less so?

His decision to march was obvious.

Obviousness is hardly in itself legitimacy.

What i find ridiculous is your follow up in that paragraph. You do realise that the only reason Robb declares himself as king in the north is because his bannermen (most of them) want that very thing?

So the Umbers and the Hornwoods and the Mormonts, say, want it. Do you think it impossible that a lordling could get caught up in a drinking celebration and the next morning have second thoughts? Do you think those second thoughts would have been given so much as a second's consideration by their new "king"?

Robb gets swept up in a single night, okay, but the claim would have had zero legs without Robb himself keeping it up, and woe betide the lord that dared believe it may not be wise.

Robb is a 16 year old boy, a child, he is hardly capable of forcing anyone into obeying him.

I don't see how you figure that. Vassalage isn't about "I'll serve the king because I like him personally." If it were, dynasties would have been utterly impossible. Vassalage is about, as much as anything else, fear that more lords will support the king than will join your side, if you were to revolt. As such, at sixteen, thirteen, ten, or seventy, Robb, as lord, commands his lords with fear.

Is it perfect command? No, that is true, it is not. And it is true that many of his greater lords at one time supported the idea of his being king and of their going to war. I'm just saying that to deny that he ruled any, or even most of them, with fear is to flat ignore what being a feudal lord means.

And of course, all of that very neatly avoids talking about that completely inconsequential group of nobodies: the farmers and shepherds and so on.

Robb's campaign is therefore [..] completely the opposite to what you say.

Could you explain that? I don't see the opposition, much less the completeness of it.

1. Robb wants revenge for his father.

Stupid reason for most things, and especially so for war.

2. The only way he can acheive this is with the help of his bannermen.

Which should tell him right off the bat that he should put the brakes on. "The only way to get what I want is to make sure that most of your sons come back in pieces and in bags, if at all. H'mm ... Maybe I should forego what I want? .......... Naahhhhh!"

3. His bannermen will only follow Robb, a child, in a dangerous and bloody war if there is a carrot.

4. That carrot is seperation from the south.

What difference does it really make to them to be separate from the south? Based on the information they have at the time, it's about a) keeping more of the taxes (greed), b) thumbing their noses at people they hated (pettiness), or c) vengeance of their own (pride). None of those parentheticals are sound motivations for most any decent behaviors -- war, which is already under a pretty heavy cloud of justifiable suspicion, should by far the less be motivated by any of these.

Its a simple process, and not one Robb could've avoided (unless he decided to stay at home, but lets face it, no way was that happening irrelevent of whether it was morally right).

Why was there no way of that's happening? And if it's regardless of what is morally right, then why doesn't that leave the door wide open for people to say that it is immoral?

I don't particularly care about the moral issues, though I've addressed some earlier in the post, but i will say that Robb's war, in a medieval period, was higher on the justified scale of things than unjustified.

I don't understand. You come into the thread wanting to know why people have taken a moral position against Robb's war, and then deny that the morality of his war concerns you at all. If it doesn't matter, then you're not trying to call it moral. If you don't call it moral, what difference does it make if other people call it immoral?

If you think, however, that it's moral, then I think you can understand being asked to be more explicit and clear in your justification.

[Ran]

Robb Stark did not start that fight, however, so your analogy doesn't work. He was just going to be the one to end it.

As to hindsight, I'm not sure that it was hindsight. Evidence of Joffrey's misrule was palpable. The killing of his father certainly broke a social contract between the Starks and the Iron Throne, much as Aerys's unjust murder of Rickard and Brandon Stark broke that same social contract.

[Lord Mord]

Ran,

Robb Stark did not start that fight, however, so your analogy doesn't work. He was just going to be the one to end it.

How do you figure? Joffrey hadn't called banners to march on Winterfell. The first banners to be raised were those in Winterfell to be marched against the Red Keep.

As to hindsight, I'm not sure that it was hindsight. Evidence of Joffrey's misrule was palpable. The killing of his father certainly broke a social contract between the Starks and the Iron Throne, much as Aerys's unjust murder of Rickard and Brandon Stark broke that same social contract.

Emphasis mine.

I don't see that either. It's well-established in medieval political theory, and especially by Westerosi history, that treason is punishable with death. The King is Joffrey, and Eddard Stark was clearly moving to depose the king. His life was forfeit to the Crown.

[Alexia]

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.

He makes that very clear. Girls are worthless. And it's really sad b/c she's getting beat up for his victories and still praying for him every day and when she's beaten so badly she can barely walk, she thinks gleefully that he'll win the war. He on the other hand...well, suffice it to say that I do think he loved her but decided to act hard and abandoned her to her fate.

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.

The Kingdom of the North was a strategic error, start to finish.

1. Accepts Riverlords as vassals

2. Loses Sansa Stark to a Lannister marriage

3. Betrays the Freys by marrying a girl who is pretty much worthless strategicaly

4. Expects his uncle to lose to Lord Twyin through his incompetence, and is pissed when said uncle isn't quite so incompetent

5. Isn't able to bring in the Vale

6. Loses the Kingslayer

7. Frees Theon Greyjoy, resulting in the sacking of Winterfell and the apparent deaths of his two younger brothers (Bolton took advantage of an opportunity; no reason to suppose he would have done it if Theon hadn't provided the excuse)

8. Refuses to yield when his loss is apparent, and insults his mother with nasty, hurtful words when she tries to make him see reason

9. Dies along with his mother at the Red Wedding, and has his body mutilated

Have I missed anything?

I don't see that either. It's well-established in medieval political theory, and especially by Westerosi history, that treason is punishable with death. The King is Joffrey, and Eddard Stark was clearly moving to depose the king. His life was forfeit to the Crown.

QFT. Ned committed treason. The Lannisters had enough evidence to behead him ten times over. It wasn't a smart decision, given the politics, but Ned pretty much got what he was asking for.

[Alexia]

I sympathise with Robb here. Certainly, the logical answer was for him to declare for Stannis or Renly, however in doing this he must forsake his claim to being king in the north. However, the only reason his bannermen ride with him is because of his claim. Therefore he gains nothing.

Not the case. They rode with him up to that point because he was their overlord. They decided to have him crown himself king after they decided they didn't like any of the other choices. They would have rode with him even if he declared for Renly (which he should have done).

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

You're probably right, but he doesn't know this. As critical as the Vale was to his chances of success, he does not even try.

[Ran]

Caspen,

How do you figure? Joffrey hadn't called banners to march on Winterfell. The first banners to be raised were those in Winterfell to be marched against the Red Keep.

No, they were raised to defend the Lord of Winterfell from the injustice of the Iron Throne -- because it was accepted, as a matter of course, that Ned Stark would never betray his honor and become a traitor. Which is, of course, absolutely true. He never was.

I don't see that either. It's well-established in medieval political theory, and especially by Westerosi history, that treason is punishable with death. The King is Joffrey, and Eddard Stark was clearly moving to depose the king. His life was forfeit to the Crown.

Joffrey was not the rightful king. The document Robert signed did not name Joffrey, and as Ned was prepared to show, legally Robert's heir was Stannis. It's not treason to depose a false claimant to the throne.

The fact that Joffrey's crown is based on fictitious paternity may not be widely known, but this is where Eddard Stark's reputation in the North matters: there's never a moment when we hear a Northern lord consider for even an instant that Ned was a traitor. They may have no clue as to just what happened, but they suppose the unspecified worst of the Lannisters, and they're right.

It sounds a lot like you, and Alexia, are essentially swallowing the Lannister propaganda and taking it at face value. I find this baffling, since we're privy to all the details, and we're also privy to the fact that Ned Stark's iron-clad reputation in the North was pretty inviolate.

Alexia,

Have I missed anything?

Now, that's talking about hindsight. Look at it from the perspective of Robb and the Northern lords, and consider is strategically, and you pretty much have to accept that if Robb being crowned is an inevitability -- and it is, given the path he had to choose -- then the only way for it to succeed for sure in the long term is for him to refuse the rule of the riverlands.

I'm glad GRRM's writing the story, in the end. There would be no story if everyone in the narrative had your hindsight and sensibilities.

[Guest Other-in-law]

You're probably right, but he doesn't know this. As critical as the Vale was to his chances of success, he does not even try.

He sent plenty of ravens, and never got so much as a reply. What else should he have done, waste an emissary on a wild goose chase? Cat and Brynden had been at the eyrie, and they had plenty to report about Lysa's mindest and likelihood of helping. Should Robb have sent commandos in to overthrow her or something?

Btw, Winterfell would've been taken by Bolton sooner or later, so Theon didn't matter.

We really don't have the slightest indication that the Boltons could have taken Winterfell without the unexpected series of events stared by Theon.

[Alexia]

Joffrey was not the rightful king. The document Robert signed did not name Joffrey, and as Ned was prepared to show, legally Robert's heir was Stannis. It's not treason to depose a false claimant to the throne.

You mean the document Ned betrayed his honor to forge? ;)

They may have no clue as to just what happened, but they suppose the unspecified worst of the Lannisters, and they're right.

Not exactly. Joffrey was a bastard, true. But Robert did not know that and Robert went to his grave declaring Joffrey his heir. Then Ned Stark botched his coup from start to finish by trying to balance honor with dishonor. In the end, he made his own bed.

I'm not swallowing the Lannister propaganda at face value and I didn't like Joffrey. But Joffrey was recognized by Robert as his heir (in spite of Ned's forgery) and Ned's execution was kind of legitimate, if foolish. He did commit treason, and even worse, he was stupid about it. What were the Lannisters supposed to do, walk like sheep to the slaughter? Like Ned did?

Also note that they never declared war on Joffrey as a bastard and illegitimate king. It's made very clear that its a war of revenge for Ned.

I'm glad GRRM's writing the story, in the end. There would be no story if everyone in the narrative had your hindsight and sensibilities.

Now you're being unfair. :D Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the story. I enjoyed shaking my head at both Ned and Robb. But just because I enjoyed reading their stories and watching the chain of events that brought them down doesn't mean I thought they were justified in their actions. Matter of fact, that's what makes GRRM's reading so much fun.

As for hindsight, maybe a fair bit of it was but marrying Jeyne was entirely foresight. ;)

[Alexia]

He sent plenty of ravens, and never got so much as a reply. What else should he have done, waste an emissary on a wild goose chase? Cat and Brynden had been at the eyrie, and they had plenty to report about Lysa's mindest and likelihood of helping. Should Robb have sent commandos in to overthrow her or something?

No, but he also should have tried to realistically evaluate his chance of success without her...which was, well, pretty non-existent.

[Guest Other-in-law]

No, but he also should have tried to realistically evaluate his chance of success without her...which was, well, pretty non-existent.

After the Blackwater, sure. But early in the war it was anyone's game. Stannis' fratricide was what ended up guaranteeing the Lannister triumph. Also, the North and Riverlands might have united under him if he hadn't wasted so much time sulking before actually declaring for the throne. Robb insisted he was the rightful heir after Cersei's brood, but his inaction up to that point prevented it from going anywhere.

[Alexia]

After the Blackwater, sure. But early in the war it was anyone's game. Stannis' fratricide was what ended up guaranteeing the Lannister triumph. Also, the North and Riverlands might have united under him if he hadn't wasted so much time sulking before actually declaring for the throne. Robb insisted he was the rightful heir after Cersei's brood, but his inaction up to that point prevented it from going anywhere.

True enough, and I agree about Stannis (who would make a terrible king, btw). But as Ran points out, Robb doesn't have a hope of holding on to the Riverlands in the long term. I think the Vale might have made it possible but without them...sooner or late that kingdom of his would have been toast.

[Octavian West]

I don't think that Robb is as bad as some people make him out to be. He marched south to free his Lord Father whom he knew was imprisoned unjustly. To say that he should have stayed at Winterfell, to me, is a bit unrealistic. Ned Stark and his honor was known throughout the realm, so for him to be imprisoned for treason was a sign to Robb and probaly most of his bannermen that the Lannisters were holding him unjustly.

However, Robb did screw up big time by letting himself be crowned King of the North, because that act alone made is chances of coming to some kind of peace with the Iron T. pretty much none existent. Like someone mentioned earlier, it just wasn't the time. Robb won every battle he faced against the Lannister's and most of them were pretty decisive. The man caught Jaime Lannister out the gate and his men obviously looked up to him. Can you imagine what he could have done with Stannis? But crowning himself king put him at odds with everyone else.

Being 16 justified him sending Theon to treat with the Greyjoys, that was just youthful foolishness. However that whole Jeyne Westerling thing had nothing to to with age, he could have been 26 and would have still done the same thing. That was beyond stupid for Robb to do and there is nothing else say for it.

IMO, the idea of the King in the North is not far fetched. The Starks were kings until 300 years ago and ruled the North for 8,000 years and don't think that there are many houses with in the series with a better claim for kingship. However, it just was not the time for Robb to be King in the North. Then he added on the Riverlands, no, Robb had stopped thinking practically.

[Forve]

Even though robb is one of my favorite characters ( Not really sure why)

Now when i am re-reading ASOIAF i tend to agree that most of his actions where though very honorable but incorrect. He is very much like his father actually. And in time would have been a great ruler of Winterfall, but he made same mistake as Ned. Left the Place of his Power ( I think i just made this up :D )

[Ser Justin the Tall]

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.

Ran:

I believe you made the best point when you pointed out that Westeros was united 150 years after the last dragon died. The Targaryen's ruled through force, wit, intelligence and cunning. With that being said one of the most important elements to this debate is the fact that Ned was trying to depose the rightful king as far as the kingdom knew, therefore he was a traitor. Plain and simple. Robb did not have the facts and no one else did. The wise thing, which is the beginning of this post, that would make Robb a great leader would be for him to call his banners. Fortify the north and Moat Cailin. Treat with the Lannisters and arrange for Sansa and Arya to come home. Remember at this point the North is feared, and to keep that impression is very important. Arrange a high intrigue political marriage, perhaps with the Tyrell's for either Sansa,Arya, Bran or Rickon and end up making the north a better place. Basically what Robb did is kill the north and create bloodshed of all his people for a traitor of the crown. Ned died and Robb acted like a bloodlusted 16 year old. A great leader does what is best for the general populace and what would have been best is to strengthen the north and save his family. When Ned died Robb became the leader and all he led the North and his family to was death.

[SecretSquirrel]

He was also cursed by some kind of fire-blood magic by Stannis. Maybe Frey would have accepted his apology without the red wedding if Stannis had not cursed him.

Rob's rule was kind of a shambles. Invading the Riverlands kind of made me think of McClellan invading Virginia in 1861. Very ambitious and bloody. He could have held the moat, but his thought I think was that Stannis or Renly would eventually fail to destroy the Lannister controlled royal armies, and then Joeffery would bring them up and destroy the north.

Theon was pretty shaky at the start of the first book. It doesn't faze or surprise me that he attacked and burned Winterfell. If Jon and Rob had not been busy disagreeing over why that Black Watch brother deserted, they would have noticed Theon kicking around his head and realized the kid needed to have an accident soon.

[Alexia]

Theon was pretty shaky at the start of the first book. It doesn't faze or surprise me that he attacked and burned Winterfell. If Jon and Rob had not been busy disagreeing over why that Black Watch brother deserted, they would have noticed Theon kicking around his head and realized the kid needed to have an accident soon.

Jon noticed and called Theon an ass. Robb, on the other hand, apparently sees nothing wrong with his friends kicking the severed heads of men who have just been executed.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Ser_not_appearing_yet,

Yes. Going south. Thinking he could play the game of thrones and stay above the it all.

Are you saying that this action was treasonous or dishonourable? I'm not sure how it was, particularly from Robb's POV. It was Ned's sense of duty towards his old friend and liege which led him south, not any personal desire for power.

It's not inconceivable that Lord Bolton greatly distrusted Eddard Stark. Unlikely, but not impossible. So, the Dreadfort could raise its banners against the Starks, and that's cool because of the distrust?

Irrelevent. Robb's father was accused of treason and executed. If Robb had known his father to be duplicitious, and trusted the lannisters then he may not have marched. If a similar scenario emerged with the Boltons, then it would be justifiable for them to march (although highly unlikely given the Bolton's mindset).

It's not hard to come to any conclusion that suits one's preconceptions. It's not impossible, or, given the way that politics corrupts, even at all unthinkable that Ned could have committed actual treason in the south, but do you think Robb would have listened either way? He wasn't acting out of absolute knowledge -- he was acting on the instinct of love for and faith in his father. At our level of existence, that's usually not a problem, but if it led to willful murder, we would say that was a crime.

Well of course. EVERYONE has preconceptions. Are you saying that in Robb's position (without your modern preconceptions concerning the smallfolk) you would have stayed in winterfell, despite the calls from your bannermen and your sisters in peril?

When it leads Robb to open revolt, why is it any less so?

Well that's rather draconian of you. If a policeman murders your father, and you already hate/mistrust this policeman, would you not wish to take revenge?

Obviousness is hardly in itself legitimacy.

True, but this is a medieval period. There is no UN. This is how wars begin.

So the Umbers and the Hornwoods and the Mormonts, say, want it. Do you think it impossible that a lordling could get caught up in a drinking celebration and the next morning have second thoughts? Do you think those second thoughts would have been given so much as a second's consideration by their new "king"?

They might, but there's no mention of it in the books, so why should i assume they change their mind?

Robb gets swept up in a single night, okay, but the claim would have had zero legs without Robb himself keeping it up, and woe betide the lord that dared believe it may not be wise.

The claim would also have zero legs without Robb's lords supporting him.

I don't see how you figure that. Vassalage isn't about "I'll serve the king because I like him personally." If it were, dynasties would have been utterly impossible. Vassalage is about, as much as anything else, fear that more lords will support the king than will join your side, if you were to revolt. As such, at sixteen, thirteen, ten, or seventy, Robb, as lord, commands his lords with fear.

This is a misconception. Sovereignity is a much more complex issue than 'he's our king, lets obey him'. The person's reputation, personal character, military standing and position, all play a role in how likely he is to be obeyed. How do you think Dynasties began? A strong ruler would gradually gain dominance over his surroundings, and people would obey him due to power. However, once Robb takes up Ned's mantle he has no real power. He is sixteen years old, surrounded by great lords and nobles, most of which possess more experience, fame, and men. The only thing Robb has is his name. And if these lords decide that they do not wish to be commanded by some boy, how exactly will Robb stop them? No, if he was Tywin or Ned he could use his reputation to instill fear or loyalty, but he can't suddenly appear out of nowhere and order these men to their deaths. They have no real loyalty to him. They have even less loyalty to their leige than nobles from our own medieval period would've, since they don't even have 'the right of kings'.

You can see all this quite clearly in the 'king of the north' chapter, and its only through the idea of 'the king in the north' that he wins their support. Quite clearly, its only this idea which binds his bannermen to him. Once most joined up others may have joined out of fear, but apart from the Boltons there is little mention by Martin.

Is it perfect command? No, that is true, it is not. And it is true that many of his greater lords at one time supported the idea of his being king and of their going to war. I'm just saying that to deny that he ruled any, or even most of them, with fear is to flat ignore what being a feudal lord means.

No, what you are doing is ignoring what is in the text, and quite simply making things up. Untill Martin specifies that the bannermen had a change of heart and began following robb out of fear, then you can accuse me of ignoring things.

And of course, all of that very neatly avoids talking about that completely inconsequential group of nobodies: the farmers and shepherds and so on.

Yes, well nobody ever seems to care about them. No mention seems to be made, although it is remarked that moral/faith in robb within the army is high.

Stupid reason for most things, and especially so for war.

By itself yes, but the deeper reason for the war was independence. Perhaps not Robb's own decision, but it would've been what people looked back on had he succeeded. It was also the reason his men fought.

Which should tell him right off the bat that he should put the brakes on. "The only way to get what I want is to make sure that most of your sons come back in pieces and in bags, if at all. H'mm ... Maybe I should forego what I want? .......... Naahhhhh!"

:lol: Fair enough, but if you take a step back most people seem to get what they want out of the deal (the south excluded).

What difference does it really make to them to be separate from the south? Based on the information they have at the time, it's about a) keeping more of the taxes (greed), b) thumbing their noses at people they hated (pettiness), or c) vengeance of their own (pride). None of those parentheticals are sound motivations for most any decent behaviors -- war, which is already under a pretty heavy cloud of justifiable suspicion, should by far the less be motivated by any of these.

I disagree strongly. Take a look back through our own history, and look at why people seek self-determination, rebel, etc. Cultural values. Religion, to name a few. To me you have completely overlooked what the North is really about. These differences are OBVIOUS, just take a look at Martin's writing to see how he seperates the North. Umber, Stark, Bolton, am i the only one who sees how different the personalities of the northern lords are to those in the south? There's a clear identity amongst them all, and it becomes clear any time a northerner is mentioned. They all identify with the north. Weirwood trees. The oldgods. Even their religion (for the most part) differs. Its just a completely different feel. Thats why they want independence.

Why was there no way of that's happening? And if it's regardless of what is morally right, then why doesn't that leave the door wide open for people to say that it is immoral?

Because Robb's father had been killed. He was going to march. Of course the door is open for you to say its immoral.

I don't understand. You come into the thread wanting to know why people have taken a moral position against Robb's war, and then deny that the morality of his war concerns you at all. If it doesn't matter, then you're not trying to call it moral. If you don't call it moral, what difference does it make if other people call it immoral?

It sounds like you concentrated on the thread title rather than the OP. I actually wanted to discuss the logistics of the North trying to break away from the south, and why it wasn't a hopeless task. Unfortunately i also complimented Robb, so its been hijacked somewhat. ;)

Not the case. They rode with him up to that point because he was their overlord. They decided to have him crown himself king after they decided they didn't like any of the other choices. They would have rode with him even if he declared for Renly (which he should have done).

Well as I've argued above, I strongly disagree with the notion that they followed him purely out of fear. He wanted to declare himself for Renly, but he didn't bargain on the man's arrogance.

We really don't have the slightest indication that the Boltons could have taken Winterfell without the unexpected series of events stared by Theon.

Why would theon make any difference? What makes you think Bolton wouldn't have raised his forces anyway?

[Lord Varys]

The Lord of Winterfell does not need to call himself 'King'; he pretty much is it in all but the name, as no King since Aegon most likely actually cared that much about the North to interfere with any decision made in Winterfell. When Jaehaerys visited Winterfell, he most likely just was curious about the North, and the way people lived up there.

So the Starks most likely had never thought about seceding from the Iron Throne (as it would mean trouble to remain independent).

Robb's mistake was to take up a crown in the midst of a war, completely uncertain about who would winning it, but knowing that making a bargaining chip out of his crown would make him seem weak. Once he became the King in the North, he had little chance to put it down and remain Lord of Winterfell.

Even more so, the fact that the other Kings claimed all of Westeros, he just the North and the Riverlands. There is no reason why any King seeing himself in Aegon's tradition (Joffrey, Stannis, Renly, Dany) would accept such a thing. That puts him in a disadvantage.

But if he took it back up in Winterfell, he could have worn it all his long life (at least, if he had built his own fleet, to counter any invasion by sea).

And when he called his banners he had pretty much no reason to do so, as he had no way to know what happened in KL. Jon Arryn knew that Brandon and Rickard Stark had been executed by Aerys, that his nephew died with them, and, most importantly, he knew that Robert and Ned had no part in whatever Brandon's crime was (and maybe he even considered Brandon threatening Rhaegar's life a crime).

But Robb just believed Ned was innocent. And more importantly, he had no plans to rid the Realm of Joffrey. He just wanted to free his father. Maybe that's the way Robert's rebellion started, too. But Robb never seemed to have realized that he mission was the moment he started to march to crush House Lannister, and get rid of all so-called Baratheon Kings, even if they had a rightful claim to the Iron Throne. It's a matter of survival.