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

[Guest Other-in-law]

Why would theon make any difference?

Because he did make all the difference in the world.

What makes you think Bolton wouldn't have raised his forces anyway?

Which Bolton? Ramsay? Because he'd be rotting in the Winterfell dungeon with no Theon to let him out.

Roose? How would he capture Winterfell when he's south of the Neck? You might claim that the red Wedding would have happened anyway, but part of Roose's strategic calculus was Robb's loss of the North, specifically Winterfell. And Robb's loss of the Freys was directly connected to Theon, too...Jeyne worked her wiles by consoling him after he learned of Bran and Rickon's "death" at Theon's command. Suppose the Red Wedding happened even without the loss of Winterfell...does that mean Roose would be able to take it at will? Not necessarily, the loyalist forces that the Bolton men slew would have been more on their guard after they heard of the RW. Theon may have been a major bungler, but he changed the game immensely.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Which Bolton? Ramsay? Because he'd be rotting in the Winterfell dungeon with no Theon to let him out.

Ok, forgot that. Sorry, its been a while since i read the books.

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.

Just a small point, but wouldn't taking up the crown in the midst of the war be a good option, since his enemy wasn't coherent, meaning it was weaker than it would've been?

[moirne]

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.

It's definitely possible considering that the North used to have kings before. I've always liked Robb even though he's made some mistakes (hasn't everyone in the series though?) I agree with your initial post that he was a good military leader. He could have become a good ruler if he had survived. His bannermen did suggest he become king, and I think it made sense for the North to be independent. If Robb had sided with Stannis, he might still be alive, but how would he or the other Northmen react to Melisandre's religion? They certainly wouldn't convert and would quickly realize that Stannis was unfit and that Melisandre was running the show. Unfortunately the Stark/Baratheon alliance died with Robert and Ned. King in the North was in theory a good one, it's just too bad that Robb decided to be a romantic instead of thinking politically. And that 16 yr old mistake was the North's downfall.

[Lochlan]

The point was made upthread that the North is a lot like Scotland, and I tend to agree. So, let's carry that analogy one step farther, and look at William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. William Wallace started his fight with the English after an English lord killed the woman he loved, ie someone close to him. Robb started his war against the Lannisters after they killed Ned; ie, someone close to him. Wallace's motivation shifted rather quickly from simple revenge to the liberation of his homeland. Why could the same not hold true for Robb? Robert the Bruce was the heir to the throne of Scotland. He 'called his banners', if you will, and fought the English for freedom. Robb is the heir of House Stark, who were the last Kings of the North, which makes him the heir to that Throne. The Starks bent the knee to the Targs, not to the Lannisters or even the Baratheons; I would argue that they were not obligated to serve the Iron Throne once it was no longer sat on by a Targaryen.

First post, be gentle with me..

[KAH]

I see Robb primarily as something of a tragic character.

A young boy who is forced to react on events as they unfold, doing his best which ultimately is not good enough.

Mostly, I disagree with the notion that Robb had obvious alternatives for the things he did, particularly in the beginning of the campaign. Robb may be lord of Winterfell after his father, with the power that comes with that position...but power can be a very ephemeral thing. Particularly if you're a green boy who pretty much got slapped in the face with a gauntlet.

Once Robb receives word of his father's arrest (and later death), you could say that he reacted to his natural instincts, of feelings of anger and desire for revenge. And you would be right.

But in a wider sense, he also reacted to the expectations of his position. In this society, the lords are not there for the protection of the smallfolk, the smallfolk are there for the utilitization by the lords. Edmure is 'soft in the head' because he actually gives a damn about his people for their own sake. And the lords have very clear expectations of Robb, of the notion of fighting for your reputation and of the pursuit of vengeance.

Robb not doing anything with regard to his father's capture would be seen as a clear sign of weakness. I would go so far as to say that whether his father was guilty or not would be almost irrelevant - Robb would be expected to do something either way. If Robb did not do something, the lords would be losing respect for him, and that can be deadly for any lord...particularly for a lord who is both young and untested, and whose father has made it rather unlikely that any support from the crown will be forthcoming. Lord Tywin may have had the luxury to sit this one out, because his bannermen knows his worth. Robb does not have that. Doing nothing, I would wager Robb would face rebellion by opportunistic northern lords like Bolton before long, and other lords would be slow in aiding what they perceive as a craven boy. (they might not want Bolton, but fighting him after the Starks are gone is eminently doable)

He could have stayed in the north and declared himself king in the North, rather than go south for Ned - but the irony is that this might actually have been harder to do for Robb; everyone expects him to fight for the honour of his House, but seceding is something different, particularly because he still is untested.

That does not mean that every other mistake he did later was impossible to avoid, of course. - but I do think that his venture down south in the first place probably had few acceptable alternatives, risk-wise.

[Alexia]

I'll interject here that I do agree with those that say Robb had to go South, or permanently lose the respect of his bannermen. However, I firmly stand by my belief that Robb completely bungled the prosecution of his war and bid for independence, his succession was badly thought out, he's a horrible judge of character, and he personally destroyed his family through his actions. There is no excuse at all for the issue with Jeyne Westerling and very little for Theon.

[Lord Mord]

Ran,

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.

Which assumes knowledge they could not possibly have. They assumed it, which is understandable but is not generally considered to have the force of law.

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.

Once again, they had no reason to believe that, other than rumor. I mean, rumor from sources they trusted, potentially, yes, but nevertheless if any crown can be made illegitimate on the basis of rumor, then no crown is safe. If your argument is against monarchy in general, that's fantastic, because that's my argument, too, but then that also cuts against Robb breaking off to make a kingdom of his own.

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.

He had a reputation, but while Westeros may operate, technically, on certain definite patterns which the author may have confided in us are generally true (Starks are honorable, Lannisters are greedy, Baratheons bluster), that does not remove the fact that the lords and Robb in particular do not have internet chats with their Author. The best they can do is to act either a) on their guts, or b) on the law. They chose their guts.

If all that were at stake were their own lives, or the lives of a few close friends, then you know what? Let them at it. It may still be wrong, but it at least moves out of the scope of this argument.

But it's not all that's at stake.

They want to uproot their loyal subjects by the thousands, almost entirely depleting their local economies, to send these people to their (for most of them) certain murders, on the basis of guts. They are gambling with other people's lives, and with the future of all the serfs in their fiefs. Doesn't that sound like somebody else we know and mutually revile?

[Lord Mord]

Ser_not_appearing_yet,

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.

I was not saying so, no.

What I was saying is that even if you take Robb's move south to protect his dad as inevitable, or morally correct in theory, then you have to ask yourself ...

Why is Ned in trouble? He's in trouble because he tried to dabble in something way out of his league. He had the audacity to assume he could set things right just because his intentions were honorable and he, for the most part, was above intriguing.

In of itself, I don't necessarily find this morally wrong, but I do find it hopelessly naive and more than a bit arrogant. As long as all that's at stake is his own life -- debatable, but in being debatable, I can allow it -- then that's his own lookout, okay. But in order to put the theory of Robb's intended actions to work on this particular instance, you're going to make everyone in the north pay dearly, most people with the only dear thing they possess and the dearest one at that, to avenge Ned's own stupidity.

That's like losing your mortgage payment on a spin of the wheel, and declaring vengeance on the casino. How are you going to win? Drain the childrens' college fund and drop it all on the 4 horse at Belmont in the eighth, and use the winnings to bribe the authorities and shut it down.

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).

How similar does a situation have to be before you conceded? I'm quite sure that House Stark has slighted some house in their demense, in such a way that house could spin it that "Stark deceived me," or "Stark did me out of mine." The point isn't about House Bolton -- the point is about whether a petulant lord has the right to throw off the crown on a matter of personal feeling.

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?

I'm saying that whatever else I did, if I marched to form a new kingdom for myself, I could not justify it any better than Robb can.

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?

Whatever I wish to do is irrelevant to what's right.

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

So, might makes right?

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

Because you are assuming they definitely did not, which is awfully convenient for Robb and allows zero room for the reality of the human mind and spirit, which are fickle, and which are often swayed by things like, "Oh, gosh, I'd really rather be snuggled up against my wife in bed right now," and "A lot of my personal economy is rotting in the fields right now," and "The gods frown on killing and generally on war," and "My sons are with me and I'd really rather not lose my beautiful heirs." In addition, of course, to the realization that, "You know, there's an awful lot of people out there who want to stick pointy things in me."

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.

Sure. That's realpolitik, which doesn't really give a crap about morality. If crowns are going to be justified at all, though, then there has to be some underlying law which makes it wrong to follow a particular pretender just because he promises you blowjobs from all the knights of Dorne. If the northmen are really so honorable, then they must fear what it is to contravene such an inherent law. If they fear the law, they fear the king whom the law serves.

I'm not saying it's the only, or even the primary factor in most of the lords who followed him. But you ruled it out completely, and disregarded that it can even have been a significant factor, which I argue it was significant for a great many of the lords, especially the smaller lords who would each have rather less to gain.

Dismissing it out of hand is a bit obtuse. Robb was either aware that most of his lords feared him (at least a little bit) and would thereby comply, or he was so vain and ignorant he just took the benefits of their fear for granted.

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'.

Who says they have not? I don't think the Targs could have got away with killing anyone who dared so much as lay a hand on any of them, or could have carried on with sibling incest, or any of their other apparent excesses, unless at some level people assumed that, yeah, the king can do pretty much what he wants.

If anything, there was rather less appreciation for "the right of kings," in our own medieval history, where the greater part of the history of the French crown, for example, was a study in perpetual emasculation. Tytos is the last weak lord of whom we have any knowledge, recent, yes, but also understood as the exception rather than the rule, and in any case, not a king.

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.

That's all very well, but they also don't suppose that they can just up and leave, do they? And naturally their optimism is hardly apt, by itself, to protect them from getting killed, yeah? A sunshine disposition, last I checked, is no match for a broadsword.

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.

I admit that my analysis of their motives was ... ah, a bit cynical. Still, they were all perfectly at home with a measure of dependence before. Their abrupt change of heart on the subject does not, as I see it, give them carte blanche to slaughter all their people to realize their new vision.

After all, how much are their subjects going to benefit, really, from their lords paying their taxes to Winterfell only, instead of a portion going to King's Landing?

: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).

H'm. How convenient for them that their desire for noble independence also happens to have fringe benefits!

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.

Yes. They did mention the gods, and they are important to the Northmen. Again, I did get a bit carried away in my cynicism. Still, it's not as though they can't still worship the old gods. There are other cultural differences, but they seem to live more or less by their own culture as it is.

And besides, I doubt very seriously that any of this had anything to do with serving the people who would suffer the worst brunt of their war-borne-on-whim. As long as that is the case what they were doing was terrifically immoral.

Because Robb's father had been killed. He was going to march.

Just a moment. You said Robb could not have avoided marching, my question was "why not?" and your response is simply to repeat that he was going to march. I'll ask again: Why was there *no* other option? Who says that he had to march?

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. ;)

I see. Well, I will have played my part in that abuse, of course ... Let me go back to the original point and see if I can't help get things back on track, yes?

In my next post. If that means you want to leave these points lie for the time being, I understand.

[Lord Mord]

Ser_not_appearing_yet,

You wrote ...

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.

As I mentioned in my first post, though, I very well might. I'm not impressed by independence as a pretext for war.

His father has been killed-legitimate cause.

Who says it's legitimate?

Here's the thing: since my point rests on these things, then we're really kind of stuck talking about Robb. Your claim is that his attempt is legitimate, and certainly at least as legitimate as Scotland's attempts for independence. My claim that this is not true, insofar as you are going to defend your point, requires your defense shore up his legitimacy.

But you're fun to talk to, so I don't mind if you don't :)

[moirne]

The point was made upthread that the North is a lot like Scotland, and I tend to agree. So, let's carry that analogy one step farther, and look at William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. William Wallace started his fight with the English after an English lord killed the woman he loved, ie someone close to him. Robb started his war against the Lannisters after they killed Ned; ie, someone close to him. Wallace's motivation shifted rather quickly from simple revenge to the liberation of his homeland. Why could the same not hold true for Robb? Robert the Bruce was the heir to the throne of Scotland. He 'called his banners', if you will, and fought the English for freedom. Robb is the heir of House Stark, who were the last Kings of the North, which makes him the heir to that Throne. The Starks bent the knee to the Targs, not to the Lannisters or even the Baratheons; I would argue that they were not obligated to serve the Iron Throne once it was no longer sat on by a Targaryen.

First post, be gentle with me..

Great first post, I completely agree. I like your last point about the Starks not having to serve the Iron Throne since the Targs no longer rule.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

The point was made upthread that the North is a lot like Scotland, and I tend to agree. So, let's carry that analogy one step farther, and look at William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. William Wallace started his fight with the English after an English lord killed the woman he loved, ie someone close to him. Robb started his war against the Lannisters after they killed Ned; ie, someone close to him. Wallace's motivation shifted rather quickly from simple revenge to the liberation of his homeland. Why could the same not hold true for Robb? Robert the Bruce was the heir to the throne of Scotland. He 'called his banners', if you will, and fought the English for freedom. Robb is the heir of House Stark, who were the last Kings of the North, which makes him the heir to that Throne. The Starks bent the knee to the Targs, not to the Lannisters or even the Baratheons; I would argue that they were not obligated to serve the Iron Throne once it was no longer sat on by a Targaryen.

First post, be gentle with me..

Though the idea of Wallace fighting the english out of an idea of revenge is a somewhat romanticised version of history, that is truely a brilliant allegory. Great first post.

Lord Caspen,

What I was saying is that even if you take Robb's move south to protect his dad as inevitable, or morally correct in theory, then you have to ask yourself ...

Why is Ned in trouble? He's in trouble because he tried to dabble in something way out of his league. He had the audacity to assume he could set things right just because his intentions were honorable and he, for the most part, was above intriguing.

In of itself, I don't necessarily find this morally wrong, but I do find it hopelessly naive and more than a bit arrogant. As long as all that's at stake is his own life -- debatable, but in being debatable, I can allow it -- then that's his own lookout, okay. But in order to put the theory of Robb's intended actions to work on this particular instance, you're going to make everyone in the north pay dearly, most people with the only dear thing they possess and the dearest one at that, to avenge Ned's own stupidity.

That's like losing your mortgage payment on a spin of the wheel, and declaring vengeance on the casino. How are you going to win? Drain the childrens' college fund and drop it all on the 4 horse at Belmont in the eighth, and use the winnings to bribe the authorities and shut it down.

I disagree that Ned's move south was arrogant. He is clearly unsure about the whole situation, and i doubt he expects to just head in wild west style and clean up the town. He intends to solve Robert's problems, but he never states 'well this should be easy' or whatever. Yes he makes foolish errors as the kings hand, but his initial decision to head south? Arrogant? After an attempt on his son's life, and a message telling him it was the lannisters? An argument could be made for him simply protecting his family. You seem to be suggesting that arrogance involves attempting something difficult.

He was prideful, of course, but i see that as somethingelse.

How similar does a situation have to be before you conceded? I'm quite sure that House Stark has slighted some house in their demense, in such a way that house could spin it that "Stark deceived me," or "Stark did me out of mine." The point isn't about House Bolton -- the point is about whether a petulant lord has the right to throw off the crown on a matter of personal feeling.

Well... to put it bluntly... yes. Remember what time period we are dealing with. This is a place where massive power is focused on very small numbers of people, a place where the slightest insult or slight can cause huge repercussions. These nobles are ordinary people, acting like ordinary people, except they hold exceptional power. It depends how you look at things. Every medieval war is immoral from your perspective.

I'm saying that whatever else I did, if I marched to form a new kingdom for myself, I could not justify it any better than Robb can.

And in the context of Robb's world, that would be perfectly acceptable.

Whatever I wish to do is irrelevant to what's right.

Not in this world. Not if you're a king.

So, might makes right?

Not by itself. But a casus belli is far easier to gain in this period than ours.

Because you are assuming they definitely did not, which is awfully convenient for Robb and allows zero room for the reality of the human mind and spirit, which are fickle, and which are often swayed by things like, "Oh, gosh, I'd really rather be snuggled up against my wife in bed right now," and "A lot of my personal economy is rotting in the fields right now," and "The gods frown on killing and generally on war," and "My sons are with me and I'd really rather not lose my beautiful heirs." In addition, of course, to the realization that, "You know, there's an awful lot of people out there who want to stick pointy things in me."

Who knows. I won't say that no lord began to have issues with Robb's plans once they marched, and a few may have had second thoughts. But considering the problems Robb faced, and the mountains he had to climb I'm surprised as many stayed loyal as they did. It suggests most did believe in what Robb stood for.

Sure. That's realpolitik, which doesn't really give a crap about morality. If crowns are going to be justified at all, though, then there has to be some underlying law which makes it wrong to follow a particular pretender just because he promises you blowjobs from all the knights of Dorne. If the northmen are really so honorable, then they must fear what it is to contravene such an inherent law. If they fear the law, they fear the king whom the law serves.

I'm not saying it's the only, or even the primary factor in most of the lords who followed him. But you ruled it out completely, and disregarded that it can even have been a significant factor, which I argue it was significant for a great many of the lords, especially the smaller lords who would each have rather less to gain.

Dismissing it out of hand is a bit obtuse. Robb was either aware that most of his lords feared him (at least a little bit) and would thereby comply, or he was so vain and ignorant he just took the benefits of their fear for granted.

Ok, you got me. I didn't mean to dismiss it out of hand. Of course some lords followed Robb out of tradition or fear, but i will mantain that they were most likely a minority. And i will keep that personal opinion of mine untill some textual evidence assuades me. ;)

Who says they have not? I don't think the Targs could have got away with killing anyone who dared so much as lay a hand on any of them, or could have carried on with sibling incest, or any of their other apparent excesses, unless at some level people assumed that, yeah, the king can do pretty much what he wants.

If anything, there was rather less appreciation for "the right of kings," in our own medieval history, where the greater part of the history of the French crown, for example, was a study in perpetual emasculation. Tytos is the last weak lord of whom we have any knowledge, recent, yes, but also understood as the exception rather than the rule, and in any case, not a king.

Sorry, typo on my part. I meant the 'divine' right of kings, which was created (by kings) in europe as a method for giving sovereigns more power (namely via religion). The point is that in westeros sovereigns and religion appear seperate, hence why they have less power than our own kings of lore. Of course the desire to serve and follow still exists, purely out of a desire for order and structure. Without a king, the nobles have no hierarchy, and anarchy reigns. But that isn't strong enough to force powerful lords into instantly following a 16 year old stark into battle. No.

That's all very well, but they also don't suppose that they can just up and leave, do they? And naturally their optimism is hardly apt, by itself, to protect them from getting killed, yeah? A sunshine disposition, last I checked, is no match for a broadsword.

Welcome to medieval warfare, where the soldiers are the tools and the lords the competitors. The only time you'll find peasant armies acting out of free will is wars of religion, or when its fight or die.

I admit that my analysis of their motives was ... ah, a bit cynical. Still, they were all perfectly at home with a measure of dependence before. Their abrupt change of heart on the subject does not, as I see it, give them carte blanche to slaughter all their people to realize their new vision.

After all, how much are their subjects going to benefit, really, from their lords paying their taxes to Winterfell only, instead of a portion going to King's Landing?

Well, i think you use hyperbole here slightly. Robb does not want his men to die. He would clearly rather complete his goals bloodlessly, its just not going to happen. There's no illusions here, everyone understands whats going on. Why do you think noone ever argues the exact point you make? Its not part of the culture to worry about collateral damage (from the perspective of the nobles). Particularly when higher ideals are at stake.

Yes. They did mention the gods, and they are important to the Northmen. Again, I did get a bit carried away in my cynicism. Still, it's not as though they can't still worship the old gods. There are other cultural differences, but they seem to live more or less by their own culture as it is.

And besides, I doubt very seriously that any of this had anything to do with serving the people who would suffer the worst brunt of their war-borne-on-whim. As long as that is the case what they were doing was terrifically immoral.

Yes, but it supports the view that self-determination was a common, natural desire in the north, and was unlikely to ever go away.

Just a moment. You said Robb could not have avoided marching, my question was "why not?" and your response is simply to repeat that he was going to march. I'll ask again: Why was there *no* other option? Who says that he had to march?

Well he didn't have to march, but as Ned's heir, and beloved son, he doubtlessly had little choice in his own mind. I've already stated it was an act of revenge, nothing more to add there, hence the same answer.

As I mentioned in my first post, though, I very well might. I'm not impressed by independence as a pretext for war.

Clearly. Its an idea borne out of nationalism, so i can see why you'd take that view. However i personally would not subject my own modern ideas onto the past, and judge it via such preconceptions. Wanting independence is a natural reaction.

Who says it's legitimate?

Here's the thing: since my point rests on these things, then we're really kind of stuck talking about Robb. Your claim is that his attempt is legitimate, and certainly at least as legitimate as Scotland's attempts for independence. My claim that this is not true, insofar as you are going to defend your point, requires your defense shore up his legitimacy.

But you're fun to talk to, so I don't mind if you don't

Its certainly a legitimate cause for war in Robb's world.

I'm not sure how to really take this discussion any further. I believe in the right to self-determination, and that in this period is represented through the feudal hierarchy (ie: the lords). Hence why i find attempts at independence legitimate. I'm not sure what else to add, but your also fun to talk to too, so yeah.

[Lord Mord]

I also believe in a right to self-determination. Resort to violence, however, necessarily and forcefully interferes with someone else's right to same. I don't say there are never mitigating circumstances, but for the most part the right to life is so sacrosanct that I expect people to try to work within their legitimate means instead.

It's not that I don't understand Robb's choices. He's a decent man laboring under trying circumstances against a corrupt regime backed by incredible wealth and power. But if you're asking for reasons why people think his actions were nevertheless wrong, this is mine.

[cybroleach]

I think it to easy to condemn Robb for mistakes early in the war several unforeseeable factors cost him: IF Balon becomes his ally they take Casterly Rock and Lannisport divide the spoils and call it a day. IF Lysa suddenly has a pain in her heart to aid her family Robb and her can smash Harrenhal. IF Renly had not been lollygaging on his ass but marching to Riverrun or Harrrenhal Robb could have been awed into Renly offer of keeping his crown yet still being needing to pay homage to Renly.

Any of these three things could have happened much differently. One thing was clear though he had no hope in the Riverlands without an ally. Taking a crown is still pretty stupid either way as a Lord he's a powerful subject that's disobedient (history is full of those) as a King he's an ever adversary.

[SFDanny]

One thing was clear though he had no hope in the Riverlands without an ally.

I'd only disagree with this last point. Robb STILL can win if Tywin isn't delayed by Edmure and he follows Robb into his planned ambush in the West. The amazing thing about Robb is that he has a real chance of victory up to the Battle of the Blackwater - without any allies but the ones who made him king. The Blackwater without Tywin leaves Robb, the Greyjoys, and Stannis as the only combatants in the War of the Five Kings. But even with the outcome being as it happened, Robb STill has a chance of regaining the North if the Freys and Bolton stay loyal. Who knows how long the war lasts if that happens.

[Hazel]

Robb marched South because he HAD to. He was raised knowing the meaning of honour, and his kidnapped father wasn't just any bloke: he was the Lord of Winterfell, a man who would have been KING 300 years prior. This man is incarcerated by a young bastard whom Robb knew, thought little of, and considered a threat to his family. Not his land, but his family. And clearly, the other lords of the North also have enough prestige for their Lord to attempt a rescue of him. Robb, once having the support of the North's nobles, thinks "Alright, fuck that bastard of a king, I'm getting my father back." Any other decision would have definitely undermined his authority in the North. How could Robb POSSIBLY bend the knee to Joffrey? Look what happened when Margaery was incarcerated: make Randyll Tarly march on King’s Landing. Does that sound any different than what Robb was doing?

Once in the South, Robb's House on his maternal side is invaded by the Lannisters, who are openly and publicly backed by the Iron Throne. So, in a conflict between the Tullys and the Lannisters, started by a Tully kidnapping a Lannister, the Iron Throne takes the Lannister's side. This gives Robb, who already is marching against the Iron Throne, all the reasons to support the Tullys. This gives him even more of a reason to oppose the Iron Throne.

This brings the Lannisters against him, and finally, after his father is murdered, Robb is proclaimed King by his own subjects. He does not proclaim himself king. He has lost his casus belli but has, in a way, gained a new one.

This is where Robb's aims in the war take an astronomical leap. He goes from rescuing his father to securing an entire kingdom. Robb has been plunged into a war which took steps, from saving his father, to saving his maternal allies, to protecting his own kingdom.

Robb WANTED to march South, but that’s irrelevant. After the Battle of the Camps his nobles WANTED him to be a King, the King in the North. He made several bad decisions and had bad luck on some occasions, but after being made King he was doing what he had to. Robb had to kill Joffrey throughout the whole war. Firstly, because Joffrey wouldn’t let his father go. Later, because Joffrey would never leave his kingdom in peace. Robb was in a situation in which events unfolded rapidly and the war got bigger and bigger for him.

As for the question posed by the OP, I do think that Robb could have secured his kingdom. He was one engagement away from removing the Lannisters from the game, and would then have only had to step against the Iron Throne, which was exceptionally weak without the Lannisters, and the Greyjoys.

I also believe in a right to self-determination. Resort to violence, however, necessarily and forcefully interferes with someone else's right to same. I don't say there are never mitigating circumstances, but for the most part the right to life is so sacrosanct that I expect people to try to work within their legitimate means instead.

Tell me how Robb could possibly have achieved self-determination without violence. Sure, the North never did much care for what happened in the South, but Robb clearly defied the Iron Throne the moment he did not bend the knee to it, and was then immediately branded a ‘traitor’. He couldn’t give a shit for how much of a traitor his father had been to Joffrey. As I said before, 300 years ago his father would have been a King. The Seven Kingdoms were subjugated by force. None of them called the Targaryens over from Dragonstone.

So what could Robb have done? Hold a referendum? His nobles wanted independence, he eventually decided that he hated Joffrey enough to want independence, and violence was the only way to get this independence.

Westeros is not 21st century Earth. If you want something as great as independence or rescuing your father from a bastardly king, fight for it. No consideration can be afforded for the smallfolk who get dragged into the war.

[Ran]

As for the question posed by the OP, I do think that Robb could have secured his kingdom. He was one engagement away from removing the Lannisters from the game, and would then have only had to step against the Iron Throne, which was exceptionally weak without the Lannisters, and the Greyjoys.

There seems to be this notion that if Stannis takes King's Landing, the Lannisters (and Tyrells) are off the playing field. I don't understand why that is. They're still there, they're still going to have to decide what to do. There's no reason to believe they'll just hole up somewhere and hope to be ignored, or that they'll necessarily end up with their own realms or opposed to Stannis or whatever. I'm not sure what Tywin would do if Stannis had taken King's Landing and executed Joff and Cersei, but I wouldn't suppose that he'd just roll over and give up.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I'm not sure what Tywin would do if Stannis had taken King's Landing and executed Joff and Cersei, but I wouldn't suppose that he'd just roll over and give up.

The more important question might be 'what Mace do if that happened?' He wants to be on the winning team, and the Lannisters look a lot more like losers after losing the capital. He might stubbornly fight on for hopes of a Margaery marriage with hidden Tommen (plus, Stannis is no friend of his), or he might start looking for a way to disassociate himself from the lions, just as the Boltons and Freys sought to disassociate themselves from the wolf.

For Robb, a Stannis victory on the Blackwater would hardly mean that he was home free, just that he still had some sort of chance left, with an actively divided realm instead of one increasingly unified under the Lannisters.

[Alexia]

Lord Tywin would still be out there of course, and pissed, but his position looks really bad. He would have lost the capital, and Joffrey, Tyrion, and Cersei would have been beheaded. What's more, Cersei was going to have Sansa beheaded too so there goes Jaime. He has no idea of what happened to Tommen (would probably be presumed dead) and Myrcella is with the Dornish.

None of this means that Robb would win the war, of course, but the odds are looking worse and worse for Tywin to win it.

[Hazel]

For Robb, a Stannis victory on the Blackwater would hardly mean that he was home free, just that he still had some sort of chance left, with an actively divided realm instead of one increasingly unified under the Lannisters.

It would actually have made things harder for him, if anything. Instead of a defeat-able Lannister opponent (All they've got left is Tywin's army) and an utterly pathetic King on the Iron Throne who is only being maintained by the (Defeat-able) Lannisters, Robb would find himself facing a VERY strong Iron Throne that could rally a lot of forces against him. Furthermore, Stannis would NEVER give the Kingdom of the North and the Riverlands peace, and would NEVER recognize their souverignity.

On the other hand, once King Joffrey was disposed of (As in butchered) Tommen could be made King on the Iron Throne, and a young child such as he would be quite easily manipulated into signing documents that would recognize the sovereignty of the Kingdom of the North and the Riverlands.

Lord Caspen, you seem to base a large proportion of your arguments on the moral grounds of Robb's march to the South. This is not the point of the thread, is it? The OP asked:

So many posters seem to label Robb and his bannermen idiots for taking up the idea of seperating from the south. Why is that?

Why can't the North in westeros acheive a similar goal? [As the Scottish]

The OP isn't asking "Was Robb a monster for dragging his poor, defenseless smallfolk into war", he was asking "Could Robb win independence for the North and the Riverlands, much as Robert the Bruce did for Scotland?"

To which I have already replied that I do.

Had Robb managed to lure Tywin into the Westerlands, he could arguably have defeated and destroyed his army. This would have left the Westerlands defenceless and ripe for the taking, with the only challenges being the garrisons at Casterly Rock and Lannisport. Whiles doing all this, he could have sent a force to the North, and we all know that he already had a plan to re-take Moat Cailin. Once a moderate Northern army reached the North the Ironborn could have quite easily been repulsed.

If Robb defeated Tywin before Littlefinger made an alliance with the Tyrells, then all Robb would have to do is march west and take King's Landing, with its meagre garrison of Goldcloaks. Why would the Tyrells throw in their lot with a petty, weak King on the Iron Throne, who could offer them nothing but a hefty war against an undefeated opponent?

If not... well, then Robb could well find himself facing a very strong South. But then again, what gains would the Tyrells see in engaging themselves in a prolonged war against a strong and stable North, led by a young King known for never having been defeated?

I'd say that Robb had a damn good chance at winning the War of the Five Kings against the Lannisters and King Joffrey. Then he’d have to deal with the Ironborn, of course, and Dany, if she actually makes her way to Westeros with the intention of reclaiming it.

I'm not sure what Tywin would do if Stannis had taken King's Landing and executed Joff and Cersei, but I wouldn't suppose that he'd just roll over and give up.

I've never considered that scenario before. But with Robb at the doorstep to his one 'house' and Stannis sitting in his other one, Tywin would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Sueing for peace with Stannis would be the most sensible thing to do, although I kind of doubt that it would work. Making peace with Robb would be a dangerous option, for he would appear to be supporting the secession, but if he had enough confidence that with his help the Young Wolf could beat Stannis, he might do it.

[Dreadwolf]

I see Robb primarily as something of a tragic character.

A young boy who is forced to react on events as they unfold, doing his best which ultimately is not good enough.

Mostly, I disagree with the notion that Robb had obvious alternatives for the things he did,...

These lines are very close to my own understanding + the simple fact I just like Rob. In the same time I am flattering my self I see his flaws and errors too.

As regards the tragedy aspect and solely In my understanding:

- Rob’s story is an integral part of the thematic about ‘blind’/ ‘turbulent’ /’uncontrollable’ Love and eventual devastating consequences it might have brought about.

(The better wording about all that was provided by Master Aemon in his conversation with Jon in AGOT)

Prince Rhaegar Targaryen once put the Realm in turmoil reportedly for his love (and may be something else) and died whispering a woman’s name in his last seconds.

Below follows a quote from my post in (out of topic as usually) another thread

After not so many years another young and valiant man (this time still a teenager) proclaimed him self as the King of the North restoring the ancient Authority of his ancestors.

Then he fell in wild love and once again a War, Kingdom and a young Life were recklessly gambled away. Saying nothing about the fate of their closest relatives, supporters and the common folks.

(For the sake of this discussion - It doesnt matter whether Robb had been in a loosing position by that time or not.)

IIRC Rob also spoke out his beloved woman\s name a few moments before he was backstabbed.

In the case with Rob IMO we have also his attempt to rectify (to never repeat) his father’s sins/ mistakes (in that particular case in fathering a bastard). (At 15/16 the children normally started to oppose and dispute his parents’ ways.)

There are many things Robb and Ned had in common and there are many others points where they acted in different manners. Still it does not prevent me to I respect them both. They both had done what in their understanding was the right thing to do. NM

IMHO Robb’s separationism had perfect chances to succeed. Standing/ Retreating beyond the Moat Calin or following the call of his duty and blood (protecting RR)

Where is the main reason for Robb’s eventual failure? (Apart from the fact I always accepted him as a hero in ancient Greek tragedy who was constantly trying to overpower his destiny - in vain)

I agree with the main portion of the criticism raised in other posters above that he was:

- Politically inept and emotionally immature;

- He had barely knew the meaning of the word diplomacy and political marriage as an invaluable means – including Sansa-Tyrells opportunity;

- He mistreated his subordinates (although that is how an ALPHA wolf keeps the order in his pack we are humans after all.)

In Machiavelli’s terms: “the greatest moral good is a virtuous and stable state, and actions to protect the country are therefore justified even if they are cruel ”

Hereby some quotes

The prince must consider, …, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches. It makes him hated above all things, …, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways. It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavour to show in his actions greatness, courage, gravity, and fortitude; and in his private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are irrevocable, and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can hope either to deceive him or to get round him. That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself, and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty.

And

A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.

Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word.

Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are , and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them.

... for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons

what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation.

Nothing shall be taken as absolutely right and justified and so on. I am just marking some of the principles Robb (and occasionally Ned) had neglected.

NM

I sympathize with Rob and I can forgive him for he neither had had the proper education (or tutor, well Cat could teach him a knack or two BTW) on importance of diplomacy and mastering his own people neither he had ever had the comfort of time to exercise some self- training.

Nevertheless all of the above I respect Robb's decision to marry JW.

Finally I would also like to point out one important event/ Robb’s appearance which I cannot forgive him.

Once Ned had been already beheaded and Jaime just captured he discussed with her mother eventual exchange.

He said (something of the sort) He would have gladly trade Jaime for his father. Cat countered ‘but not for your sisters?’ Then the young wolf remained in silence most probably embarrassed by him self. I do not think he loved his sisters less or he valued them less ‘cause they are girls. I think he considered Jaime quite a dangerous general to be just freed for his beloved sisters. Robb underestimated their very high potential in that war/ conflict and that was wrong. Still I think he did not do that for he is a classical troglodyte- patriarch who is in possession of his sisters. Still I cannot forgive him for he disappointed his mother and made her more desperate.

(Well above is only in my book I guess.)