Do you think that Robb Stark not supporting Stannis is presented as a mistake?

[Razha]

Had Stannis declared himself king earlier, had he disclosed the info about origins of Joffrey - than koining him would made sense. But Igain things dont always happenwhen and the way you want them to happen...

Also - noone knew about "the Mellisandre - the secret wheapon" thing... If it was not for her Staniss whould never defeat Renly/Tyrrel forces, Robb and his supporters would know that - so allying with Stannis directly would made them to confront Renly/Tyrrels as well - in the real world, with no magicall pristessess this would be an extremely unwise decision - at the time when Robb was declared king - Renly/Tyrrels were the biggest visible force opposing the Iron Throne (rightfully or not this is another issue), Stannis was seen as an unpopular looser sittying somewhere on rocky islands.

I totally agree with those who think that Stannis was the righfull hair to Robert, but if I were Robb I would not put my bets on Stannis.

[ghost of Harrenhall]

Robb first plan to treaty with Renly was the best plan at the time. Stains looked like a long shot before the shadow baby thing. If Renly had lived he would have taken KL easily, as Robb and the river lands kept the Lannisters busy. Then negotiate about what the word King means, probably would have gotten a deal like what the Martells have

Robb 2^nd plan was to treaty with Stannis and was the same. Hold the Lannister, till there is a king he can deal with.

[TheButcherCrow]

Torrhen Stark bent his knee & the north had 300yrs of peace. Robb Stark undid that, whatever else you want to say about the lad. I like Robb, but it can't be denied that Robb's revolt has very nearly lost the Stark's everything. I maintain, the only option should have been to join up with Stannis.

[LuisDantas]

I suppose this is a dual question. The heading and also whether he would have actually won or not with Stannis. I personally got the feeling that the whole northern independence arc wasn't seriously pursued, it sort of springs out of thin air, there are no true grievences that can't be solved by putting another monarch on the Iron Throne;

I got the opposite vibe. Robert was tolerated in the North due to a combination of de facto independence and respect for his friendship with Ned. The North does not really see it as subjects of the Iron Throne, but rather as allies or potential enemies.

theres not a lot of effort to make the case for northern independence. I never felt Martin was trying to make me sympathise with that cause in of itself, with the Starks themselves, of course; but not exactly that element of it. When Robb has this pushed on him by the Greatjon, he seems about to support Stannis and do the honourable thing.

That seems quite a lot more ambiguous to me, both in the support thing - he is, after all, not even acquaintanced with Stannis - as for the honor of the idea itself. At that point Stannis is an unknown quantity even for the readers. That was a moment of perhaps undue formality, not of honor.

However, I think the fact that he takes the crown is a sign of the boy in him and his inability to resist the romanticism of being sworn in as King of the North. Its one of, IMO, the few instances where doing the honourable thing might have actually turned out a lot better for the Starks; they still swore oathes of fealty to House Baratheon.

Wow. That is almost the exact opposite of my view. Robb couldn't stop the pledge for Northern independence if he wanted to. Supporting Stannis would not be honorable at all, although Robb could hardly be expected to know that at that point. Nor would it even be advantageous. To boot, they had oathes to the Iron Throne by way of Robert, and it was an open question whether those oathes should transfer to Joffrey, Stannis or Renly, if to anyone at all. In any case, the pledge for independence makes those oathes moot.

Had they supported Stannis, they could have taken advantage of Stannis's meteoric rise and Robb Starks victories in the Westerlands.

Robb is way too honorable to ally with Stannis, though. Unless you are proposing some sort of alternate scenario where Stannis either refuses to kill Renly or Catelyn does not learn of it (and therefore tells Robb).

More importantly, Robb could have possibly made an effort to stop Tywin Lannister relieving Kings Landing. Not to mention the effect this might have had on the actions of other players like House Tyrell.

A better and more honorable way of doing that was attempted by Robb and Catelyn when they sought an alliance with Renly. Stannis destroyed the attempt. One of his main crimes, since it also made the whole WO5K longer and more dragged than it could otherwise be.

Does that seem about right? Or is not supporting Stannis not made out as a mistake by Martin?

The second alternative. Stannis is meant to be despised and destroyed, much like Tywin. It just turns out that his Northron campaign is mostly defensable, but not out of any virtue of the man himself.

[Razha]

Torrhen Stark bent his knee & the north had 300yrs of peace. Robb Stark undid that, whatever else you want to say about the lad. I like Robb, but it can't be denied that Robb's revolt has very nearly lost the Stark's everything. I maintain, the only option should have been to join up with Stannis.

This is based on the information you have after 5 books

But this info was not available to Robb and Co.... at the moment Robb was declared king they did not know about bastardy of Joffry and Stannis has not declared himself a king,

It is easy to judge based on information we have now, but circumstances at that point were different.

Let's imagine for a moment that Joffrey is not a bastard - than Staniss would be no more than a pretender, just like Renly.

Revolt of Robb was not against Lannisters, it was against King Joffrey Baratheon and Iron Throne.

[TheButcherCrow]

This is based on the information you have after 5 books

But this info was not available to Robb and Co.... at the moment Robb was declared king they did not know about bastardy of Joffry and Stannis has not declared himself a king,

It is easy to judge based on information we have now, but circumstances at that point were different.

Let's imagine for a moment that Joffrey is not a bastard - than Staniss would be no more than a pretender, just like Renly.

Revolt of Robb was not against Lannisters, it was against King Joffrey Baratheon and Iron Throne.

Well said. I just re-read the feast at Riverrun, Robb's initial thought is to kill Joffrey & bend the knee to Tommen, saying:

“Renly is not the king,” Robb said. It was the first time her son had spoken. Like his father, he knew how to listen. “You cannot mean to hold to Joffrey, my lord,” Galbart Glover said. “He put your father to death.” “That makes him evil,” Robb replied. “I do not know that it makes Renly king. Joffrey is still Robert’s eldest trueborn son, so the throne is rightfully his by all the laws of the realm. Were he to die, and I mean to see that he does, he has a younger brother. Tommen is next in line after Joffrey.”

Some of the things I said in earlier posts were wrong, Robb did initially react as I believe his father would have. The various northern lords & river lords then have their say as to who to side with Stannis or Renly (Tommen is not even considered, it seems a large portion of the 7 kingdoms has had it with Lannisters & Joffrey/Tommen are considered Lannister even before Stannis' letter). Cat then makes a very eloquent plea for peace (shades of Portia, imo):

...We went to war when Lannister armies were ravaging the riverlands, and Ned was a prisoner, falsely accused of treason. We fought to defend ourselves, and to win my lord’s freedom. “Well, the one is done, and the other forever beyond our reach. I will mourn for Ned until the end of my days, but I must think of the living. I want my daughters back, and the queen holds them still. If I must trade our four Lannisters for their two Starks, I will call that a bargain and thank the gods. I want you safe, Robb, ruling at Winterfell from your father’s seat. I want you to live your life, to kiss a girl and wed a woman and father a son. I want to write an end to this. I want to go home, my lords, and weep for my husband.” The hall was very quiet when Catelyn finished speaking.

This goes down like the proverbial lead balloon. Greatjon then comes up with "King in the North" & the rest is history.

[winteriscome]

I suppose this is a dual question. The heading and also whether he would have actually won or not with Stannis. I personally got the feeling that the whole northern independence arc wasn't seriously pursued, it sort of springs out of thin air, there are no true grievences that can't be solved by putting another monarch on the Iron Throne; theres not a lot of effort to make the case for northern independence. I never felt Martin was trying to make me sympathise with that cause in of itself, with the Starks themselves, of course; but not exactly that element of it. When Robb has this pushed on him by the Greatjon, he seems about to support Stannis and do the honourable thing. However, I think the fact that he takes the crown is a sign of the boy in him and his inability to resist the romanticism of being sworn in as King of the North. Its one of, IMO, the few instances where doing the honourable thing might have actually turned out a lot better for the Starks; they still swore oathes of fealty to House Baratheon.

Had they supported Stannis, they could have taken advantage of Stannis's meteoric rise and Robb Starks victories in the Westerlands. More importantly, Robb could have possibly made an effort to stop Tywin Lannister relieving Kings Landing. Not to mention the effect this might have had on the actions of other players like House Tyrell.

Does that seem about right? Or is not supporting Stannis not made out as a mistake by Martin?

I disagree I think the deaths of Rickard and Brandon, the abduction (perceived or otherwise) of his daughter, combined with Ned's death and the geographical and cultural divide between the North and the South is ample reason to seek freedom. Robb and Stannis together would have been the end of the Lannisters but they could not agree and they made the mistake of approaching Renly rather than Stannis first.

[Ponys123]

Well Robb had already tried to stop Tywin from relieving KL, but Edmure prevented the Lannister forces from crossing the ford, and that move allowed Tywin to be delayed and divert his forces south. But sometimes I think Robb should have supported Stannis, but even if he had Stannis would still be outnumbered.

Yeah, about that episode - the entire "trap Tywin beyond the river" strategy sounds like retcon to me. Robb's preparations were hardly adequate for such a maneuver. IMO, what they were actually trying to do was draw Tywin out of Harrenhal so that they can consolidate their position in the Riverlands, directly threaten KL and Roose's host can march up and be of use.

[Alester Florent]

I disagree I think the deaths of Rickard and Brandon, the abduction (perceived or otherwise) of his daughter, combined with Ned's death and the geographical and cultural divide between the North and the South is ample reason to seek freedom. Robb and Stannis together would have been the end of the Lannisters but they could not agree and they made the mistake of approaching Renly rather than Stannis first.

As noted above, though, that's only a mistake with the benefit of hindsight. Renly is swaggering northwards with a hundred thousand men and looks capable of beating the Lannisters on his own. He also responded quickly to the Lannister threat - almost as quickly as the North, even if he's using a different strategy, making him a natural ally of the North (he's also known to be more pliable than Stannis, thus easier to come to terms with). Stannis, meanwhile, takes ages to declare and mobilise himself, and at the time Cat makes her mission to Renly, Stannis is kicking around off the east coast with pretty much nobody supporting him but pirates and smugglers. He doesn't look like - indeed, doesn't become - a serious contender until after Renly's dead and he's able to co-opt the Stormlords and some of the Reach.

[juanml82]

It was a mistake. His father would have wanted him to support Stannis, fact. He got carried away, when he was still thick with grief over his father's death. If it had been Eddard in his place, he would have shot down the first mention of "king in the north". I can hear him now:

"You would have me rip this kingdom apart", said Lord Eddard, his voice calm and steady. "Is that right, Lord Umber?" The Greatjon fumbled some sort of response that was lost to Lord Stark, he turned to all the northmen assembled and said, "I will not bleed this country more than the Lannisters make us.We will join with Stannis and end this quickly, he is the rightful king and winter is coming".

He wasn't ready to be able to make that choice though, shame.

Yes, Ned would have said something like that. But he had ruled the North for about fifteen years, and was known and respected by his bannermen. Robb was fifteen, just won two battles, is unproven as a ruler and he's leading older and more experienced men than him. He might have said something along those lines - which I don't think so, given how he was grieving for his father - but his leadership is still in shakier grounds. That being said, it was a serious mistake, as it raised the stakes way too much - it was what prevented an alliance with either Baratheon brother.

If he had managed to defeat the Tywin host as well (think everything going well: he sacks the Westerlands, Tywin marches on him, Edmure is aware of Robb's plan and closes the river after Tywin crosses it, Robb defeats Steffan Lannister and then crushes the Tywin host in a pincer manouver), then a peace deal with Robb and Edmure bending the knee, Joffrey taking the Black (Tyrion would have agreed, Cersei wouldn't accept it, the Tyrells might have gone for it, Tywin or Kevan, if alive and free, would have demanded it) and a prisioner exchange is not that unacceptable. And, should either Baratheon win, the war is over - no negotiations are really needed.

[TheWOLFbeyondTHEwall]

Not Necessarily. In retrospect the best move would have been to keep the north independent, go back to Winterfell and rule the biggest Kingdom in Westeros. I do not blame Rob for heading south, but when Ned died he should have brokered some deal with the Lannisters for Sansa and went home. He would have been The King who took back the North. The Starks bent the knee to the Targaryens and only because of dragons.

[Mr Fixit]

The biggest mistake was declaring for ANYONE at this point. Robb should have waited to see how things progress. Then declare independence or bend the knee to one king or another.

[TheonGreyjoy]

Not Necessarily. In retrospect the best move would have been to keep the north independent, go back to Winterfell and rule the biggest Kingdom in Westeros. I do not blame Rob for heading south, but when Ned died he should have brokered some deal with the Lannisters for Sansa and went home. He would have been The King who took back the North. The Starks bent the knee to the Targaryens and only because of dragons.

His father was beheaded, his sisters was Lannister prisoners, his uncle was surrounded by enemies. He didnt have any choice but to walk south. Who would just sit by while his family gotten slaughtered??

[Naathi Prince]

Banking on forces you 'presume' you have I don't think is ever reasonable.

There was absolutely no reason to think that the Vale would not get involved, and I tend to think a raven to Yohn Royce would have gotten him 15,000 swords anyway.

[TheWOLFbeyondTHEwall]

His father was beheaded, his sisters was Lannister prisoners, his uncle was surrounded by enemies. He didnt have any choice but to walk south. Who would just sit by while his family gotten slaughtered??

as a matter of fact, they did get slaughtered, and it would have been worse had Osha and Hodor not snuck Bran and Rickon out of Winterfell. And i would argue that they got slaughtered because he was so quick to act. Even though his uncle was in trouble, he had a duty as lord of winterfell.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

In Robb's defense he doesn't really know how badass Stannis actually is. Now Jon Snow knowing but not falling in line (The whole burn the Wirewood trees things could be negotiated) THATS a mistake!

[Baelor Swyft]

The bigger mistake in my mind is Stannis not reaching out to Robb. I certainly understand why he didn't do this... but Robb didn't even have ambitions towards the Iron Throne. By reaching out and offering Robb his Northern Kingdom, he would secure the Iron Throne for himself. At this point The Others weren't even on his radar so he had no reason to lament the loss of the North, other than an asinine sense of requiring all of Westeros (for no particular reason). Robb probably even would have yielded the Riverlands to Stannis, possibly in exchange for the safety of Sansa and Arya. Robb could have sacked Casterly Rock while Stannis takes King's Landing and the Lannisters get their own little Rains of Castamere.

[Ponys123]

In Robb's defense he doesn't really know how badass Stannis actually is. Now Jon Snow knowing but not falling in line (The whole burn the Wirewood trees things could be negotiated) THATS a mistake!

Eh, what? A bastard leaves the NW, declares for a Southron rebel king, teams up with some queer foreign religion and takes Winterfell for his seat after burning its weirwood? Hmm yeah, definitely a great way to gather support in the North.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Eh, what? A bastard leaves the NW, declares for a Southron rebel king, teams up with some queer foreign religion and takes Winterfell for his seat after burning its weirwood? Hmm yeah, definitely a great way to gather support in the North.

Come on, the Weirwood burning was negotiable remember (In my scenario)? He could get that removed as a stipulation. And as far as the Red God goes I can't remember how many times I sat through church pretending to listen. And the Northmen, Manderly at the very least, are throwing in with Stannis to achieve his own ends, at least on the surface, he wouldn't begrudge Jon the same luxury.

[mormont]

The bigger mistake in my mind is Stannis not reaching out to Robb. I certainly understand why he didn't do this... but Robb didn't even have ambitions towards the Iron Throne. By reaching out and offering Robb his Northern Kingdom, he would secure the Iron Throne for himself. At this point The Others weren't even on his radar so he had no reason to lament the loss of the North, other than an asinine sense of requiring all of Westeros (for no particular reason). Robb probably even would have yielded the Riverlands to Stannis, possibly in exchange for the safety of Sansa and Arya. Robb could have sacked Casterly Rock while Stannis takes King's Landing and the Lannisters get their own little Rains of Castamere.

This scenario just isn't in either man's character. Not at all. Stannis was never going to give away one of the Seven Kingdoms when, in his view, it was his by right, and with it Robb's allegiance and obedience: and after the blood they spilled for him, Robb was never going to hand over the Riverlands if they didn't choose to go.