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

[Chanur]

Ser_not_appearing_yet,

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.

So much hilarity in one post. There are two things you are over looking. The first it was the northern lords responsibility to Ned to march. They swore allegiance and were expected to hold to that.

The second the war was solely on the Lannisters already. You do not execute the kings hand/warden of the north/ a lord paramour before he even makes any charges. To everyone else Joffery just up and executed him, that is not how things were done. He was a great lord and allowed trial by combat or the wall. They ignored all that. Last time this happened there was drum roll please...civil war. So please get a clue.

[Alexia]

The second the war was solely on the Lannisters already. You do not execute the kings hand/warden of the north/ a lord paramour before he even makes any charges. To everyone else Joffery just up and executed him, that is not how things were done. He was a great lord and allowed trial by combat or the wall. They ignored all that. Last time this happened there was drum roll please...civil war. So please get a clue.

No, to everyone else he was executed after he denied Joffrey's kingship to his face in public after Robert died. And after he publically confessed to treason on the steps of that sept.

[Hazel]

No, to everyone else he was executed after he denied Joffrey's kingship to his face in public after Robert died. And after he publically confessed to treason on the steps of that sept.

And the North would care about this because...?

The North's leader gets executed, and the North thinks, "Our leader's been frickin' executed! You, the people ruling us from half a continent below, have KILLED OUR LEADER!"

So why in the world would the North care if Eddard had betrayed, slapped, mugged or sworn at Joffrey? The fact of the matter is that THEIR LEADER gets incarcerated, and on top of that they're told to swear fealty to this bastard.

It's not like Ned had been killed because Tyrion dropped a chandelier on him after he was recovering from a massive drinking competition involving all the traitors of the Seven Kingdoms. Ned was accused of 'betraying' what many, if not almost all, of the nobles of the North consider to be a completely different kingdom. Ned clearly did not act against the North, he acted against a foreign throne.

Besides, the North had the STRENGTH to act. If the Iron Throne did something bastardly to them, they could just say "Screw you, we're pretty much our own country, and no-one takes our leader hostage and asks us to beg forgiveness for his betrayal of you. We want him back, we have the strength to get him back, and we'll DO SO". I suppose that later on, the nobles of the North simply realized "Hey, we've taken it this far against that stupid Iron Throne, why not just become our own kingdom again?".

What many people seem to forget is that ASoIaF begins in a time of EXTREME change. For the first time in 300 YEARS there are no Targaryens on the Iron Throne, holding the Seven Kingdoms together. That was only 15 years ago. That being said, it's hardly surprising that such a war as enormous as the War of the Five Kings would break out, with such momentous events as the secession of the entire North and the Riverlands.

[SFDanny]

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.

If Stannis takes King's Landing then in all probability it is because Tywin is in the West fighting Robb. In this alternate reality, it is entirely possible the Lannisters are without Tywin, Kevan, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, and Joffrey - who are all either dead or in prison. It also means that Tywin's army is likely defeated and there is no real organized, well-trained, or adequately led fighting force under Lannister control. I think that pretty much takes them out of the fight for a good length of time. In short, it becomes a fight between Stannis and Robb - if Robb continues to refuse to swear fealty to Stannis. The Greyjoys are still in the field, but an ally of neither Stannis or Robb. What comes next would be anyone's guess, but in such a scenario I wouldn't have bet against Robb.

[SFDanny]

double post, sorry

[Maia]

I don't get where the idea that the Northmen wanted to separate from the South when they first followed Robb into the Riverlands came from. That wasn't the case at all. The North, like most of the 7 Kingdoms prospered from unity.

It is also patently false that Starks were any less "married" to Baratheons than they were to Targaryens. Ned bound them to the Iron Throne as surely as Torhen Stark did before him. It was just a convenient lie for Greatjon to use.

The idea to secede only appeared during a very lengthy council in which Robb pooh-poohed all alternatives. So, in the end Greatjon decided that Robb was angling for a crown himself. It was a huge mistake, IMHO. Robb couldn't decide what to do and let Greatjon decide for him.

Now why was it a huge mistake? For many reasons:

A very lengthy and severe Winter is approaching - and they know it for a fact, after such a lengthy Summer. North would need food supplies from the South to avoid mass starvation. Only, with the whole King in the North stuff, why would it bother to help them?

The wildlings are gearing for another invasion. The last one banged the North pretty good and almost ended House Stark.

The Riverlands are indefensible, once the situation around the Iron Throne sorts itself out.

Everybody with claims on the Iron Throne is now an enemy.

Re: the Vale, Robb knew from Moat Cailin on, that the Vale wouldn't help him. Also, why should it bow to him as king? Arryns are no parvenus like the Tullys, but former kings themselves. There would always be problems of precedence.

Re: the Ironborn. Given that Balon's letters to Theon were very rare and cold and that he didn't answer any of Robb's missives, Robb should have known that any cooperation from them was very much a longshot, Theon's problematic loyalty and disastrous wording of Robb's proposal here or there.

Emptying Winterfell lands of warlike men coupled with intention to stay in the south for long, was an invitation for power squabbles among Northern nobility.

And the worst of it is, that because he was a king, Robb couldn't back down gracefully once the circumstances turned against him. It is just too much of a risk to let somebody who claimed a crown live on in power.

Re: Robb marching or not marching once Ned was arrested. I don't think that the more level-headed of his lords liked the idea of going to fight Tywin Lannister under the command of a 15-year-old. Others, of course, jumped at a chance of glory, loot and power, however slim.

IMHO, it was possible for him to stay put, particularly with the wildling threat to the north. Lord Rickard didn't go to war either, when Brandon was arrested.

[Alexia]

@ Maia

:bow:

Couple things.

And the worst of it is, that because he was a king, Robb couldn't back down gracefully once the circumstances turned against him. It is just too much of a risk to let somebody who claimed a crown live on in power.

He could have backed down, just too young and full of pride. Bolton noted at one point that he could get a pardon. His mother urged him to yield. And Balon Greyjoy was allowed to live after his rebellion, mistake or no.

I don't think that the more level-headed of his lords liked the idea of going to fight Tywin Lannister under the command of a 15-year-old. Others, of course, jumped at a chance of glory, loot and power, however slim.

Robb would have done better to put that host of his under the command of Roose Bolton instead of coming South himself. They would have gone South, done their thing, and none of this foolishness about "King in the North" would have happened.

[alguien]

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.

I was just thinking this. Had Robb not decided to expand his kingdom from just the North to the Riverlands, then I think he might well have remained independent. Moat Cailin seems like it was a very great choke point and he probably could have held off most of the South. Wasn't one of the main reasons the King Who Knelt did so because of the Targaryen dragons, which pretty much negated any advantage at all Moat Cailin would have had? With dragons (as far as everyone knew) out of the way, Robb may have succeeded if his secession had solely involved the North.

Of course, the Starks had little to no power at sea, so I'm sure Southern fleets could have been used to transport troops elsewhere.

Anyway, some of these posts read a little vitriolic against Robb. I mean, one could depict the same about Tywin:

He underestimated and was outwitted by a 15 year old with a feint wouldn't fool anyone's grandmother. It left his army mouldering well away from his son's, whose army utterly crushed because the incompetent didn't know how to deploy scouts and was an impatient fool. Then, after getting his forces repeatedly routed on their own home ground, he managed through treachery to assassinate the 15 year old who had wiped the floor with him militarily. But he couldn't savor his triumph long, because the dwarf son he disdained assassinated him on the shitter with aid from the spymaster he loathed and underestimated.

I think Robb made mistakes, but some of the comments smack of almost personal bias and Monday morning quarterbacking rather than realistic criticism.

[Lord Mord]

Hazel,

You've written to me twice. I will try to answer each point raised as best I can.

Tell me how Robb could possibly have achieved self-determination without violence.

To the extent he was unable to think of anything better than murdering people, he should have suffered to be dependent, in a similar way that just because you grow up in a poor neighborhood you shouldn't decide the only way that you can be rich is to sell drugs.

One's self-determination is always impeded by some factor or other. What, just because we think a particular factor is "unfair," that gives us the right to murder a whole lot of people who had nothing whatever to do with that unfairness?

How could I live with myself if I did that?

Where murder is absolutely the only way of achieving what one wants, which I believe is probably a fictitious condition in the first place, still, when it occurs the only proper choice in almost every circumstance you could name, is to change one's desires and settle for something else. Just because you really, really want a crown all your very own, believe it or not, doesn't give you the right to smash some peasant's face in to get it.

So what could Robb have done?

That depends on what he wanted. To tell the truth, I don't know how he expected to get a crown without killing people, and so I think he should have foregone taking a crown. After that, I don't know with what he would have been content having.

His nobles wanted independence,

And he leads those nobles. If he absolutely can't talk them out of it, then he shouldn't be their leader. And mind you, I'm not the one inventing these absolutes, you are. If you want to paint Robb as in an impossible position, then, yes, he's going to have to eat massive crow and make a lot of sacrifices. As much as I like Robb and don't think that in a perfect world he should have to do without, we don't have a perfect world, but that doesn't alter the moral imperative he faces not to kill.

he eventually decided that he hated Joffrey enough to want independence,

Suppose Lord Bolton decided that he hated Robb enough to want independence, and that the nobles who served him were clamoring for it. Is he justified in using violence, too? Or is violence only cool for the people we like? Or is violence against people we don't like cool? And what if Tyrion and Robb should come to blows? Which one gets to use violence against the other?

We can stop all such circular questions at the outset if we just say: none.

No consideration can be afforded for the smallfolk who get dragged into the war.

Why not? Who says?

[Lord Mord]

Hazel,

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?"

Who said anything about Robb's being a monster? Good God, he's just a boy trying to do what he believes is best in a really messed up world. No monster there. The fact that what he believes is best may not be the best is important, but it doesn't condemn him to monstrosity.

As for the OP ... I mean, if it really is merely "yes or no, could Robb have achieved independence?" well, clearly, the answer is yes, he could have done. What kind of question is that? Similarly, it's not impossible that I could beat Garry Kasparov at chess. You can lay odds that it's unlikely, fine, whatever, but once you've conceded that it's basically possible, what else is there to talk about?

[Lord Mord]

Chanur,

There are two things you are over looking. The first it was the northern lords responsibility to Ned to march. They swore allegiance and were expected to hold to that.

Did they not also swear allegiance to the Iron Throne and the realm? H'm! Which to serve? A potentially treasonous lord locked away, or the whole realm and the king who leads it? Gosh!

To everyone else Joffery just up and executed him, that is not how things were done. He was a great lord and allowed trial by combat or the wall.

I'm not saying that Joffrey should have executed Ned, but he was king and there was no civil body with the authority to stop him. Ned and all the other lords know that they're living in that kind of world, and have accepted it heretofore. If Doran's treason had been found out and Robert had elected to behead him, I doubt very much that any of the other lords paramount would have so much as said "boo" about it. If Ned said anything at all, it would have been in private.

So, are they not honorable men for not going to war? I thought Doran was supposed to be allowed to go to the Wall if he wanted? Doesn't that mean that the realm must or at least should bleed?

Or is that just reserved for the characters whom we like really well? Or only for the characters who, because of authorial content which the people of Westeros cannot have, we know to be "in the right" ...?

Last time this happened there was drum roll please...civil war.

Yes, and it was the wrong decision then, too.

[KAH]

And he leads those nobles. If he absolutely can't talk them out of it, then he shouldn't be their leader. And mind you, I'm not the one inventing these absolutes, you are. If you want to paint Robb as in an impossible position, then, yes, he's going to have to eat massive crow and make a lot of sacrifices. As much as I like Robb and don't think that in a perfect world he should have to do without, we don't have a perfect world, but that doesn't alter the moral imperative he faces not to kill.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

What was he supposed to do, say "Sorry, chaps, not only will I not be your king, I'm also through being your lord! It's been real! Todeloo!"? It does not do anything to get him or his family out of the pickle, in fact, it would put Bran and Rickon in immediate mortal danger, even as it does Robb. Robb is not free to walk away, it's not how this system works.

Robert Baratheon was a king for fifteen years, he never walked away either - and it was hardly for love of the job.

[Hazel]

Lord Caspen,

Ever heard the quote, "To save the village, we had to destroy it"?. It's from the Vietnam war, where a U.S. unit realized that in order to accomplish their missions and clear a village of Vietcong activity, they had to destroy the village, burn it to the ground. Who cares about the people, we're waging a war, we've got orders from the greater scheme of the grand strategy. This quote is from as recent a time as 1968. Immoral? Yup. Disgusting, abhorring? Yeah. But nevertheless, it was carried out. Someone, somewhere along the staff-line, thought: "Damn, that's cruel, but I can do it, it might bring us victory, so let's do it." Similarly, I doubt that medieval lords would care about the peasants of the lands when carrying out their grand strategies, particularly in a time in which there were hardly such things as "human rights".

To the extent he was unable to think of anything better than murdering people, he should have suffered to be dependent, in a similar way that just because you grow up in a poor neighborhood you shouldn't decide the only way that you can be rich is to sell drugs.

One's self-determination is always impeded by some factor or other. What, just because we think a particular factor is "unfair," that gives us the right to murder a whole lot of people who had nothing whatever to do with that unfairness?

How could I live with myself if I did that?

Where murder is absolutely the only way of achieving what one wants, which I believe is probably a fictitious condition in the first place, still, when it occurs the only proper choice in almost every circumstance you could name, is to change one's desires and settle for something else. Just because you really, really want a crown all your very own, believe it or not, doesn't give you the right to smash some peasant's face in to get it.

Amongst nobles, it's only considered murder if peasants are killed in times of peace. Sure, that's not fair, but that's just how it is. Killing the people of your enemy, in fact, is a pivotal element in war. If you kill the innocents, the peasants, the millers, bakers and farmers, your enemy will have less productivity, more suffering, more depopulation to contend with. Is this "right"? No. Does that matter? No.

That depends on what he wanted. To tell the truth, I don't know how he expected to get a crown without killing people, and so I think he should have foregone taking a crown.

How did you even manage to read ASoIaF? Military leaders in history have learned that if you have the power to take something that you want, give it a shot, especially if you have confidence in your own success. I think you mentioned that "might makes right" earlier in this thread. Well, there you have it. I don't know what utopia you're dreaming of here, but if the people of 2009 don't think within the mindset of "If I take that Afghan village I'll get the dead terrorists that I want, but if I do that lots of people might die, so I'd better not do it", why in the world should the people of a medieval setting do so?

And he leads those nobles. If he absolutely can't talk them out of it, then he shouldn't be their leader. And mind you, I'm not the one inventing these absolutes, you are. If you want to paint Robb as in an impossible position, then, yes, he's going to have to eat massive crow and make a lot of sacrifices. As much as I like Robb and don't think that in a perfect world he should have to do without, we don't have a perfect world, but that doesn't alter the moral imperative he faces not to kill.

Why would he want to talk them out of it? I much believe that he could have said, "No, let my father rot in that cell. Peace is more important", and he'd still have been Lord of Winterfell. Kings in our history have done WAY worse blunders and remained as kings. But there's lots to be gained by attacking the south: at the forefront of his mind, revenge and "justice". And once there, there's even more to be gained! Glory, the love of the Riverlands, a royal family line, independence from a real bastard... why the hell would Robb not want all that when he's being presented with a golden opportunity to have it? Oh yeah, he doesn't want his people hurt.

Well, he has the strength to take it all, and he gets carried away with it. Robb oversteps himself and gets himself killed. He could have had so much, and ended up with nothing. It should hardly be underestimated how many more people COULD have died in the War of the Five Kings. Robb might have beaten Tywin, but then found himself against the Tyrells. I can see tens of thousands, if not over a hundred thousand, people being crushed in the cruel dance between the North and the Reach. But would ANYONE have said, "Alright, that's it, I'm laying down my arms. Too many people are dying". Hell, if no-one in World War 2 did so, with its millions of casualties, why should King Robb or Mace Tyrell?

I'm not calling Robb a bastard who thinks only of what he could gain, and is ready to build a stairwell of human corpses to get to it. I'm just calling him human.

Suppose Lord Bolton decided that he hated Robb enough to want independence, and that the nobles who served him were clamoring for it. Is he justified in using violence, too? Or is violence only cool for the people we like? Or is violence against people we don't like cool? And what if Tyrion and Robb should come to blows? Which one gets to use violence against the other?

We can stop all such circular questions at the outset if we just say: none.

Roose would simply be a simple parallel in our history. If a figure in history learned that he could do something and pull it off, he usually tried it out. England has had over a dozen rebellions by people who wielded enough power to give their ambitions a shot. The Spanish didn't need moral reasons for conquering the New World. They wanted to do it, they could, SO THEY TRIED. It's just human.

The thing is, Roose has no bannermen under him above the rank of, say, village mayors or lower nobles, he himself being a bannerman. Robb, however, has HALF A CONTINENT in his disposal.

Sure, it's wrong to do things just because you can. And luckily, it turns out that not doing so is usually more advantageous these days. That's just human quality for you.

Why not? Who says?

Because, bucko, there's a war being fought, and nobles change their mindset to the grand strategy of things. "Gotta get rid of the Lord of Crakehall. There's his castle, burn his lands to starve him out. What? People? What people? I only care about starving out the Lord of Crakehall".

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that that's just a medieval mindset... we're lucky that it changed in the last 50 years or so.

[Alexia]

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

What was he supposed to do, say "Sorry, chaps, not only will I not be your king, I'm also through being your lord! It's been real! Todeloo!"? It does not do anything to get him or his family out of the pickle, in fact, it would put Bran and Rickon in immediate mortal danger, even as it does Robb. Robb is not free to walk away, it's not how this system works.

Robert Baratheon was a king for fifteen years, he never walked away either - and it was hardly for love of the job.

I have to observe here that in general 15 year old boys should not be leading grown men and Robb Stark's story is kind of proof of it. I'm sure he would have done fine if he had the chance to grow up himself but his storyline is pretty much him trying to be all hard and grown up and in reality acting like a kid.

Obviously, Robb was kind of stuck with his position and could not resign it, regardless of whether or not he was ready for it. But was he ready? Should he have been the leader? I don't think so.

(Note: I don't think anyone is being vitriolic towards Robb. No one thinks he's a monster. Lord Tywin gets his share of criticism in threads about, well, Lord Tywin and fam. But I think Robb's due a fair bit of criticism, a lot of the mistakes he made could have been prevented and could have been foreseen. And would have, had he been older.)

[Hazel]

I have to observe here that in general 15 year old boys should not be leading grown men and Robb Stark's story is kind of proof of it. I'm sure he would have done fine if he had the chance to grow up himself but his storyline is pretty much him trying to be all hard and grown up and in reality acting like a kid.

Obviously, Robb was kind of stuck with his position and could not resign it, regardless of whether or not he was ready for it. But was he ready? Should he have been the leader? I don't think so.

(Note: I don't think anyone is being vitriolic towards Robb. No one thinks he's a monster. Lord Tywin gets his share of criticism in threads about, well, Lord Tywin and fam. But I think Robb's due a fair bit of criticism, a lot of the mistakes he made could have been prevented and could have been foreseen. And would have, had he been older.)

I agree with you here, but only in the political aspect. Just look at Edward, the Black Prince. He helped win brilliant tactical victories on the battlefield at Crecy when only 16 and Prince Henry (Later Henry V) put down an entire rebellion at the Battle of Shrewsbury, at the same age. This just goes to show that Robb, by all means, could have been the Lord of Winterfell's most brilliant young commander. But not necessarily the best Lord of Winterfell himself.

Yet, considering, Robb didn't fare so badly. He kept his kingdom stable up until the point in which he could have defeated his nemesis and won the war, gaining more political breathing space- the luring of Tywin into the Westerlands. Things started falling apart in earnest AFTER that event, in my opinion.

But I could negate my own statement by saying that accepting the Riverlands into his kingdom was a potential fatal mistake: even if he'd won the War of the Five Kings, life would have been hell for him, riding south or sending forces south every other year to repulse an attack on the Riverlands. But then again, House Hoare did just that quite well before the arrival of Aegon, didn't they? So I guess that even then, Robb would have had a chance for triumph.

Conclusively, my opinion is that Robb did just about everything right (Or mayhaps "not wrong") up until the failure of his grand military strategy and the Battle of the Blackwater. This is where Robb still had some sort of opportunity (Which he didn't take) to bail out: flee beyond the Neck, and sue for peace the whole way through; beg for mercy and forgiveness, maybe surprise Stannis near the Wall and hand his head to King Tommen; who knows, maybe his pitiful life would have been spared.

But who knows? Maybe that's what Robb was intending to do, more or less, once Edmure's wedding and the re-taking of the North had been dealt with. But I doubt that.

[Chanur]

Chanur,

Did they not also swear allegiance to the Iron Throne and the realm? H'm! Which to serve? A potentially treasonous lord locked away, or the whole realm and the king who leads it? Gosh!

I'm not saying that Joffrey should have executed Ned, but he was king and there was no civil body with the authority to stop him. Ned and all the other lords know that they're living in that kind of world, and have accepted it heretofore. If Doran's treason had been found out and Robert had elected to behead him, I doubt very much that any of the other lords paramount would have so much as said "boo" about it. If Ned said anything at all, it would have been in private.

So, are they not honorable men for not going to war? I thought Doran was supposed to be allowed to go to the Wall if he wanted? Doesn't that mean that the realm must or at least should bleed?

Or is that just reserved for the characters whom we like really well? Or only for the characters who, because of authorial content which the people of Westeros cannot have, we know to be "in the right" ...?

Yes, and it was the wrong decision then, too.

Golly Gee I do not recall the north ever swearing to King Jof, so your point is moot.

If someone seizes power and you believe it not to be theirs do you just say oh darn guess we have to listen to him because he says hes the boss. No you try to correct it, and since you cannot vote a king out that leaves 1 recourse.

Even our fore fathers thought so. Guess we are all criminals then, you included. Better go turn yourself in.

[Daena the Defiant]

Did they not also swear allegiance to the Iron Throne and the realm? H'm! Which to serve? A potentially treasonous lord locked away, or the whole realm and the king who leads it? Gosh!

Technically, the bannerman of the Starks only owe fealty and allegiance to House Stark, which in turn owes fealty to the Iron Throne. The vassals don't owe homage and fealty directly to the king.

So, no, House Tallhart, say, owes no allegiance to the Iron Throne.

That's not how the fuedal system works.

[moirne]

Hazel, I really like your posts!

I think it's easy for us to sit here and list off everything he did wrong. But nobody was going to sit down and draw up a list of pros and cons. Robb had to act quickly, not sit there debating with himself for weeks. Wars in general are rash and unfair. You can't bring a modern perspective into this, it's a civil war that is taking place during medieval times. If anyone brings morals into it, they are missing the point of the story.

[Alexia]

Conclusively, my opinion is that Robb did just about everything right (Or mayhaps "not wrong") up until the failure of his grand military strategy and the Battle of the Blackwater.

I think he did everything military right (with the exception of relying on Edmure's supposed incompetence) and everything political wrong. Wasn't it Tyrion who said that he won the war on a battlefield and lost it in a bedchamber?

Technically, the bannerman of the Starks only owe fealty and allegiance to House Stark, which in turn owes fealty to the Iron Throne. The vassals don't owe homage and fealty directly to the king.

Not sure this is right. Lord Frey specifically said that he'd sworn oaths to the throne.

[alguien]

Hazel, I really like your posts!

I think it's easy for us to sit here and list off everything he did wrong. But nobody was going to sit down and draw up a list of pros and cons. Robb had to act quickly, not sit there debating with himself for weeks. Wars in general are rash and unfair. You can't bring a modern perspective into this, it's a civil war that is taking place during medieval times. If anyone brings morals into it, they are missing the point of the story.

Not only that, but its a civil war with several sides. I think that Robb performed fairly well given the resources he had and the information at his disposal. I still wonder why he and the Blackfish didn't just tell Edmure that they wanted Tywin to pursue them. That's my biggest criticism. Maybe they thought a feigned defense would be less convincing... I don't know. People fault him for sending Theon, but I'm fairly certain Balon Greyjoy would have attacked the North whether Robb kept his son or not. Certainly it seemed like plans were already in motion to do so before Theon arrived.

Given what we know of his character, and the character of the North in the context of the story, it would have been a pretty unrealistic move had he just "given up".