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

[KAH]

But why would the Tyrells ally with Robb? The Lannisters got them through a marriage alliance; that is, making Margaery a queen. Robb is already promised to a Frey girl and I can't imagine anyone would ever trust him again if he threw the Frey alliance over for the Tyrells. Even the Tyrells wouldn't trust him; look at what the Lannisters have to say about the Freys now.

Robb would have to break his betrothal to the Freys, that is true. Trust would be less of an issue than you think, though.

The Tyrells know very well that they're in the kingmaker's position. Robb needs them, just as the Lannisters need them. They know that throwing away the Freys for Margaery makes political sense - and when you think about it, the Lannisters did the same. Joffrey was betrothed, and the Lannisters broke the betrothal for the sake of the Tyrell alliance.

In short, the Tyrells ally with the one most likely to give them what they want. The King of the North and the Riverlands does not do that. The King of the Seven Kingdoms does.

[Alexia]

Robb would have to break his betrothal to the Freys, that is true. Trust would be less of an issue than you think, though.

The Tyrells know very well that they're in the kingmaker's position. Robb needs them, just as the Lannisters need them. They know that throwing away the Freys for Margaery makes political sense - and when you think about it, the Lannisters did the same. Joffrey was betrothed, and the Lannisters broke the betrothal for the sake of the Tyrell alliance.

In short, the Tyrells ally with the one most likely to give them what they want. The King of the North and the Riverlands does not do that. The King of the Seven Kingdoms does.

Well, the betrothal to Sansa is entirely different because she was the daughter of a man beheaded for treason and sister to a rebel. It's not like her marriage was negotiated value for value; it was done between friends for friendship's sake. But yes, I do see your point and at the least Walder Frey wouldn't have been in a position to do the Red Wedding.

Still, if Robb Stark had survived the whole thing over Jeyne Westerling I kind of get Kingslayer deja vu. "Robb Stark? Well, we all know what his word is worth!"

[KAH]

Well, the betrothal to Sansa is entirely different because she was the daughter of a man beheaded for treason and sister to a rebel. It's not like her marriage was negotiated value for value; it was done between friends for friendship's sake. But yes, I do see your point and at the least Walder Frey wouldn't have been in a position to do the Red Wedding.

Still, if Robb Stark had survived the whole thing over Jeyne Westerling I kind of get Kingslayer deja vu. "Robb Stark? Well, we all know what his word is worth!"

The value and the circumstances do not change the fact that they were, in fact, betrothed. The rebellion was a convenient excuse to break it, but it does not change the fact that it was just an excuse.

It just shows that betrothals are not all that sacrosanct, particularly when there are huge political gains at stake.

As for Robb's word...

Well, when you're top dog, you can get away with it. Kings are funny that way.

[alguien]

I got the feeling the Tyrells would have accepted a marriage between Sansa and one of the boys as a way of keeping a foot in both camps. Margaery to Joffrey, Willas to Sansa. If Robb were killed, than Willas becomes essentially the most powerful lord in the seven kingdoms, as he would be lord protector of Winterfell. If Joffrey and the Lannisters were to be defeated, than Margaery becomes widowed (again) and they have a good alliance with the North.

From Robb's POV, an alliance with Tyrell may not have moved them to give military aid, but it would have at kept them neutral in the war. Would returning Jaime have been worth keeping the Tyrell's out of the war? I'm honestly not sure.

[Alexia]

I got the feeling the Tyrells would have accepted a marriage between Sansa and one of the boys as a way of keeping a foot in both camps. Margaery to Joffrey, Willas to Sansa. If Robb were killed, than Willas becomes essentially the most powerful lord in the seven kingdoms, as he would be lord protector of Winterfell. If Joffrey and the Lannisters were to be defeated, than Margaery becomes widowed (again) and they have a good alliance with the North.

From Robb's POV, an alliance with Tyrell may not have moved them to give military aid, but it would have at kept them neutral in the war. Would returning Jaime have been worth keeping the Tyrell's out of the war? I'm honestly not sure.

Yes, even if Robb won he would have been grateful to them for "rescuing" his sister from the Lannisters and Willas would have been married to a princess. If he loses, they get Winterfell. It's a win-win situation for the Tyrells either way.

KAH - I meant to say if he survived as Lord of Winterfell since the moment he married Jeyne he lost that crown of his. ;)

[Dreadwolf]

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.

[Ser Justin the Tall]

I think there has been some great debate over this issue, but the thread itself has become somewhat (hijacked is a bit too strong) slanted away from the original debate though.

The OP's narrative was that basically Robb was a great leader and he did not understand why Robb gets very little respect in general as a leader. Following that I have seen a lot of great back and forth, but some of the points that have been made are somewhat ludicrous. I don't want to point any fingers in the spirit of great debate, so I will not quote some of these notions, BUT:

To imply that Robb was a great leader means that he was able to achieve goals for the collective group of the people he is directly responsible for: in his case the North. Where Robb led the North is to bloodshed, with many deaths, no clear leader after his death, let his family die, and ultimately a weakened state of his country against any foreign invasion. A lot of posters have postured that some of these things weren't his fault. For example the argument that he had to go South because of honor to his family. Well this was his fault. It was a bad decision and the razing of Winterfell and the loss of the North happened. His decision, his fault. He claimed the title and made a bad decision, he lost the north. The OP's narrative was that Robb was a great leader and my claim is that for him to make that claim you have to compare Robb to other great leaders and if that is done Robb falls very short of being a great leader, in fact let's tally again: He lost the North, he lost 3 of his biggest allies through dumb decisions, his castle was taken and razed, he essentially got his closest friends/allies/family killed and he died. Robb was a bad leader a worse king, so let's stop giving him handicaps like his age and honor.

[Ran]

Going south was not a "bad decision". It was an inevitable decision. That's how the society functions. Lord Eddard has been imprisoned, killed, or a fugitive from the Lannisters -- of course the North rises to go south. There wasn't even a question.

Robb was a great commander. I don't think I'd call him a great leader, however. Not because of choices that were forced on him, choices that were difficult and could not be avoided. But for the things he did which he could have avoided. He was thrust into a too complex situation, too young.

[Maia]

Surely Robb's bannermen screaming for the 'king in the north' suggests they were pretty keen on the idea?

After Robb had nixed supporting all existing claimants to the Iron Throne and Greatjon started the screaming, yes. In these circumstances, it would have been politic to join in, whatever individual lords thought. Also, they were still riding the high of their victory, particularly the younger men. However, the idea of secession didn't appear before that moment. It certainly wasn't the "carrot" to get his lords to follow Robb, as you suggested earlier. They followed him to Riverrun without any such intentions _and_ would have continued to follow him if he had sensibly chosen to proclaim for one of the Baratheon brothers.

Are you suggesting trade cannot exist between two seperate countries??

It can, sure. But a hostile southern government would have all reasons in the world to sabotage it. Also, given that the North is poor and the food surpluses of the South would have been somewhat depleted by civil war, a certain level of goodwill and long-term trust would have been necessary. All of which secession precluded.

You keep mentioning the wildling threat, when Robb's knowledge of them was almost non-existent.

Oh, please. _Ned_ already considered them a serious threat in the beginning of AGOT. Not quite immediate at that point, but he thought that he'd have to call the banners to deal with them in not so distant future. Since then, the Night Watch bombarded Robb with ever more alarming messages - which he chose to ignore. He also chose to ignore that wildlings were able to raid as far south as Winterfell at will - despite a very personal experience that nearly cost him and Bran their lives.

Whats so urgent about the north? They would concentrate on uniting the south, and even if one claimant does finally win out, its unlikely they'll be prepared for another long bloody war against the North (a region with little economic importance), their only route via the death-trap of moat cailin.

It gives every other power-hungry paramount, who wants to wear a shiny crown and not to be answerable to anybody, ideas? It leaves Robb, who has tasted military success, free to swoop down whenever he gets bored enough or sees some weakness?

And in case you have forgotten it, the Winter is coming. A very severe winter. All you'd need to get the North back would be to let them die from starvation for a couple of years and the war to reconquer them won't be all that bloody at all. Yes, the North has survived winters before - but! Due to relative prosperity of living in united Seven Kingdoms it's population has increased. A lot. Which means that they are going to die like flies from impending famine.

Why can't the North survive in a scenario similar to Dorne?

Because Dorne is a stone's throw away from the Free Cities and the Eastern continent and thus has lots of opportunities for trade and alliances outside Westeros? But even Dorne decided to join in eventually. Because the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.

Robb doesn't want to rule the Vale. Irrelevent.

Well, many people said, rightly, that "King in the North" would have been feasible if Robb had the Vale. But the Vale has no reason to subjugate itself to King in the North. In fact, it would be more humiliating and far less advantagious for them than to be under the Iron Throne.

Except it was much of the Northern nobility who encouraged Robb to go south. The vast majority of his nobles are already with him. Squabbling's a problem for any warlord.

I don't remember them being so intent on going south under Robb's command. They weren't all idiots and knew that with a green boy at the helm, chances of success were quite slim. IIRC, he had to threaten quite a few of his nobles. Once he gathered the banners, he had to move, of course.

I'd also like to point out that Lysa managed to stay out of things without being overthrown, even though she openly accused the Lannisters of her husband's murder. So, it _is_ possible in Westeros. Also, neither Lord Rickard nor Jon Arryn proclaimed war when their heirs were arrested. So, the notion that Robb _had_ to march once Ned was arrested isn't quite true.

As to squabbling, Robb should have known not to strip Winterfell lands bare of warlike men, which was basically an invitation for it, as well as blatantly disregarded the wildling threat.

It would likely be a long period of time, with both peace and war intertwining for the North, but you haven't given a reason why that means they wouldn't reach independence. Scotland did it.

Sigh. Scottland had France that really wasn't that far away and intermittantly distracted the English or provided some aid. There was also some real opression from the side of the English to fight against. Even so, independant Scottland was a brutally poor, bloody and backward place.

You seem to think that independance by itself is a good thing. It is not. It can lead to good things, but rarely does. Particularly not on that level of social developement as they have in Westeros and not for a poor region like the North, largely devoid of trade and crafts.

KAH:

I agree that _if_ Robb decided to go for the crown, he should have gone the whole way for the Iron Throne. That would have given some southerners a reason to support him. But IMHO proclaiming for one of the Baratheons would have still been the best deal for the Stark family, and the people of the North and the Riverlands.

[Matarreyes]

Robb was a great commander. I don't think I'd call him a great leader, however. Not because of choices that were forced on him, choices that were difficult and could not be avoided. But for the things he did which he could have avoided. He was thrust into a too complex situation, too young.

Aren´t the two bolded quotes in direct contradiction? Robb WAS thrust into a complex situation and was too young to get out of it. This is why he in to way was a great commander. He could have been one, had he survived to learn from his mistakes, but his decisions during the books weren´t wise or profitable for the North. Hell, they weren´t even his decisions in most cases. The King of the North decision was forced on him. The marching south decision was forced on him. Could a really great commander avoided both? Of course!

Having a member of one´s family unjustly imprisoned does not equal "not having another option but to march against the family/castle holding him". In fact, it´s hardly news (see: Tyrion by Cat) and hardly a reason to randomly put together an army and attack without a long term plan (see Tywin, who wasn´t moving to free his son, but rather to strengthen the might of the Rock). Finally, see Tywin writing Jaime off altogether because getting him out wasn´t a viable option. Makes for one horrid father, but being a good commander is all about thinking about the needs of everyone before the needs of a few family members. And before someone tells me that Stark honor would have been badly tarnished if Robb had not gome south inmediately after Ned was arrested: noone in Westeros seemed to think worse about Lannister honor or military might when Tywin sat in KL and celebrated his grandson´s weddings instead of retaliating against people who imprisoned his heir and killed off some of his unarmed underage nephews.

As for hating the "legitimate king" - and Robb accepted Joff as legitimate - as a reason to seize some power for himself... Well, Robb gambled on the power vacuum, and lost. Can´t see any grandeur in that, just Greyjoy-like opportunism and willingness to risk too much for a not-good-enough-reason.

[Alexia]

Having a member of one´s family unjustly imprisoned does not equal "not having another option but to march against the family/castle holding him". In fact, it´s hardly news (see: Tyrion by Cat) and hardly a reason to randomly put together an army and attack without a long term plan (see Tywin, who wasn´t moving to free his son, but rather to strengthen the might of the Rock). Finally, see Tywin writing Jaime off altogether because getting him out wasn´t a viable option. Makes for one horrid father, but being a good commander is all about thinking about the needs of everyone before the needs of a few family members. And before someone tells me that Stark honor would have been badly tarnished if Robb had not gome south inmediately after Ned was arrested: noone in Westeros seemed to think worse about Lannister honor or military might when Tywin sat in KL and celebrated his grandson´s weddings instead of retaliating against people who imprisoned his heir and killed off some of his unarmed underage nephews.

Matarreyes, I kinda disagree with your assessment of what Tywin did. He specifically indicated that the honor of Casterly Rock was at risk and he had to march. Not that increased power didn't factor in but I do think he saw it as an honor issue. And he was already at war with the people holding his son hostage, there was no way to break Jaime loose and he thought the Starks would kill him out of hand for what happened to Ned. He had no way to stop it and he was very upset about it.

Finally, he wasn't sitting in KL instead of retaliating. He was making an alliance with the Tyrells (for which that wedding was critical), with the Freys and Boltons, and organizing the RW.

[Ran]

One can be a great general on the field and incapable of politics off of it. Robb had a brilliant talent for tactics, not so brilliant for politics. Hence, too young and too complx a situation.

In fact, it´s hardly news (see: Tyrion by Cat) and hardly a reason to randomly put together an army and attack without a long term plan (see Tywin, who wasn´t moving to free his son, but rather to strengthen the might of the Rock).

And don't you think that if Tywin had been the one captured, his sons would have launched a war... ? Seriously. That's how these things work in Westeros. Tywin may have had alternative motives in launching his attack, but looming large in it is that it's a matter of showing that you don't screw around with the Lannisters.

[Errant Bard]

We can still agree that either way there is no grandeur nor heroism in doing what peer pressure and society forces you to do, when you have no vision or political acumen, even if you are talented in fighting. After all heroism or grandeur are not decided on how good you are at what you do, but on your motivation to do what you do, and your strength of character in the face of adversity.

I feel this is a problem with Rockroi's exposition, too, the fact that Robb's goal was not the implied "secure the realm" but rather strike at Lannisters, Joffrey in particular, topple him and exact revenge, in a War of the Usurper fashion.

[Matarreyes]

Matarreyes, I kinda disagree with your assessment of what Tywin did. He specifically indicated that the honor of Casterly Rock was at risk and he had to march...

Finally, he wasn't sitting in KL instead of retaliating. He was making an alliance with the Tyrells (for which that wedding was critical), with the Freys and Boltons, and organizing the RW.

Exactly my point, see? Tywin was forced into a reaction of some sorts, but he chose what sort of reaction, and was clear on the goals he was expecting to achieve. He did a number of other things apart from assembling an army and marching it straight to the North, which is kinda what Robb was doing. I mean, at the moment Robb left Winterfell, did he even have a clue about what he would do once he crossed the Neck? Raise KL to the ground? Raise the Rock to the ground? Add his forces to the Riverrun forces? To the Eyrie forces? All the time, he pretty much reacted to what his enemy was doing, and never had any clear view of what he needed to do long-term about the whole situation. Which is why, the moment he was asked about his long-term plans, he got overruled by the shouting bunch of exalted northmen.

And don't you think that if Tywin had been the one captured, his sons would have launched a war... ? Seriously. That's how these things work in Westeros.

Your argument that AGOT Jaime may have done the same as Robb does NOT constitute a good defence of Robb´s qualities as commander, as we all know how well Jaime fared in Whispering Wood ;) And Tyrion most certainly would not act to help his father, sorry to say.

Again, see my response above. When deciding to involve one´s land in an open war, you MUST know what you want to achieve. Tywin wanted to strenghten the might of Casterly Rock, and he acted consistently with this plan. He raised nearby lands, burned far away lands and inspired fear in Westeros peasants. What did Robb want? To free his father? He would need to storm KL for that. To help his Tully uncle? One single moment of thought would have shown him that his presence in Riverrun would only anger the Lannisters into attacking harder. Later in the game, he went on raising the westernlands, robbing their gold and attacking castles sworn to the Rock, all in the attempt to twart the Lannisters. Which is a petty move again, since he was attacking his enemy secondary seat of power. The head of Lannister power was in KL, not the Rock at the time. So again, other then short-time trouble, his major goal was never clear.

[Alexia]

And Tyrion most certainly would not act to help his father, sorry to say.

But Matarreyes, Tyrion LIED to Oberyn to tell him that Lord Tywin didn't give the order to have Elia and her children killed in an attempt to protect his father. And that in a situation where he was sitting in a dungeon for a crime he didn't commit and his father was one of the judges. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Tyrion would have gone to war over his father, up until the end of ASOS. And it has nothing to do with "like" and everything to do with Lannister honor...Tywin thought Tyrion was an idiot for getting captured by a woman and didn't like him one bit, but he still went to war.

I pretty much agree with everything else on the need to know what your goals are and the Tywin/Robb difference in that though.

[VorianGR]

I thought Rob's goal was clear at first, help his Tully relatives that were hard-pressed and force the Lannisters to free his father.

Once he learned his father was dead, he had no other choice than to launch a vengeance war, even if he didn't want to. His lords were all loyal to Ned and would spit on him in contempt if he bowed to the Lannisters after Ned's execution.

[Dreadwolf]

IMHO It would be urealistic to expect that anyone at age of 15/16 years would have been succesful in similar undertaking.

Alexander the Great was 20 when his father Philip was assassinated. Then the Macedonian army proclaimed Alexander king and shortly therafter he conquer the major part of the (known) world of that time. He died without completeing his dreams in full at age of 33.

I really think the situation would have been different if Rob had been placed in the same circumstances at 20. (cf Ned at the time of Robert Rebellion; cf also Petyr Balish in his youth).

This is one of the many reasons for I sympathize Robb. At 16 he made remarkable war campaign and (in my understanding) completely deserved the respect of lord Tywin Lannister as a battle commander and war-lord. In my undertsanding after accumulating rahter bitter experience in the fields, the old and seasoned politician and commander in-chief decided to take no further risks and used all available means to eliminate the threat as quickly as he could - paying no heed for any kind of scruples (well not for the first time in his career). That is why I consider Robb a tragic hero, feel sory for him and like already said I am well-disposed and have my great respect to the boy who never became a man.

And on the main quiestion - to me it was not impossible for the North to re-gain its freedom. Just like it was untill the Dragons era.

[Ran]

Mattareyes,

And Tyrion most certainly would not act to help his father, sorry to say.

No more than Tywin acted to help Tyrion when he attacked the riverlands, as such. To protect the family prestige, "the Lannisters always pay their debts"? Yes. Tyrion would have understood that allowing such gross belligerence to go undealt with was poison to the position of the Lannisters.

When deciding to involve one´s land in an open war, you MUST know what you want to achieve.

Lift the siege of Riverrun and from there force the return of his father. When his father was killed, circumstances changed, and once he accepted the crown, he knew the next step was to secure his position. This meant peace negotiations with other kings and a continuing campaign to make sure that he held as much of a position of martial strength as he could manage.

Robb very much knew what he was doing in Riverrun at the start of ACoK. It all becomes unravelled at the Crag, of course, but before then, his policy intentions were very clear. I'm surprised that you find that otherwise.

Errant Bard,

I feel this is a problem with Rockroi's exposition, too, the fact that Robb's goal was not the implied "secure the realm" but rather strike at Lannisters, Joffrey in particular, topple him and exact revenge, in a War of the Usurper fashion.

That's untrue, however. Robb began peace negotiations. He was willing to make a peace, provided the circumstances were right. The North and the Riverlands had a large grievance, and they expected a lot because of that. And certainly, he continued his campaign, but a truce was not in his favor at that time. After all, in some senses Robb could never believe the Lannisters would let the North stand as a kingdom alone, whereas it was possible that if Renly won the Iron Throne he might be willing to countenance it, and that if Stannis did that he'd be too weak to do much about it.

[Lord Varys]

Robb could have ended up in Mace's position, if he had not declared himself King of a a part of a broken Realm. As the Tyrells, the Florents, the Hightowers, and the Estermonts prove, it is not a great problem to change your allegiance in war time (especially when wind suddenly changes direction).

But it is much more difficult when you declare yourself King without any claim your opponents could accept. Renly became Stannis's (and Joffrey's) mortal enemy the moment he declared himself King. It's the same with Robb: As King he is a completely different kind of adversary to all other would-be Kings. And that's why his chances of forging an alliance started to decline the moment he declared himself King.

The smart thing to do would have been to wait, as Stevron Frey suggested. Robb's reluctance to swear fealty to Stannis (or Renly) would have changed the moment he learned about Stannis's revelation about the incest (and as that would have explained Jon Arryn's death and why the Lannisters needed to silence Ned, I'm sure Robb would have believe it; and even if not, it would have presented him with an opportunity to follow another King).

[KAH]

I thought Rob's goal was clear at first, help his Tully relatives that were hard-pressed and force the Lannisters to free his father.

Once he learned his father was dead, he had no other choice than to launch a vengeance war, even if he didn't want to. His lords were all loyal to Ned and would spit on him in contempt if he bowed to the Lannisters after Ned's execution.

Yeah, but these goals were either of a nature the circumstances allowed a purely military approach in order to pursue properly, or also became irrelevant.

No one's going to help him with a vengeance war aside from those already on his side. Which is why he should have pursued his vengeance in a wider context (taking the throne, or help some other lord take the throne), so that he could have gotten allies.