The Manhood-Eating Goat Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Is anybody able to reconcile these two Robb Stark quotes, from the same chapter in ASOS?"Lord Umber, this one was only the watcher. Hang him last, so he may watch the others die""This is my work. He dies at my word, he must die by my hand." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
young.wolf Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 maybe the Starks only follow this rule when the condemned is sentenced to beheading. Jon also commands someone in the NW to hang Jonos Slynt but then rethinks it and decides to behead him personally.On another note, Ned tells Bran in AGOT that he who passes the sentence should swing the sword, but does not indicate personal action on other means of execution.apart from this I'm not quite sure how it could be reconciled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Luke. Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I am pretty sure he just does it when someone needs to be beheaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Manhood-Eating Goat Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 I am pretty sure he just does it when someone needs to be beheaded.Why though?"He dies by my word. He must die by my hand" is pretty unequivocal in suggesting that death, not beheading, ought to be imposed by the man who imposes it.We're told at several points the reason for it, and never given a distinction between beheading and other methods of execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I think its just an example of the inherent snobbery of Westeros, where Lords deserve a personal beheading but those of lower birth are hanged. However, given Ned personally beheaded a lowly Night's Watch deserter, it seems he took the tradition to its logical conclusion of a Lord personally beheading everyone sentenced to death in their demesne, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Manhood-Eating Goat Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 So at best we can read that while Robb wants to follow his father's ideals, he failed to understand them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the Green Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 So at best we can read that while Robb wants to follow his father's ideals, he failed to understand them?I think the best way to explain it is that Robb is just as much his mother's son as he is his father's. The southron have different ways of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father of Hosts Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 So at best we can read that while Robb wants to follow his father's ideals, he failed to understand them?Not necessarily. We don't have a precedent for executions of more than one person. Would the Ned have personally beheaded thirty deserting Night's watchmen? Or would he have ordered the other 29 executed while he executed the leader or highest ranking officer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dryhtscipe Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Robb didn't want to get executioner's elbow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I think it's because Rickard was the leader and a lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I wish Robb had just imprisoned him and kept his men, although I feel for Lord Rickard, he lost all 3 sons to Ser Jaime. I understand. Cat really f-d up the Northern Army with her release of Ser Jaime and she got killed along with Robb and his host because she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerJeremiahLouistark Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Is it because Rickard is a lord and deserves to die a clean death? The reason Eddard beheaded the black brother was because the Starks put the brothers in black on pedestals. Just speculation, thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Edmure Tully Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I wish Robb had just imprisoned him and kept his men, although I feel for Lord Rickard, he lost all 3 sons to Ser Jaime. I understand. Cat really f-d up the Northern Army with her release of Ser Jaime and she got killed along with Robb and his host because she did.He didnt lose all three sons to Jaime, he lost two. Harrion Karstark was captured by the Lannisters. The fact that Rickard would murder two Lannister hostages when his remaining son is still captive is rather mind-boggling for me.Rickard was a selfish man, I feel for him losing his sons, but this should have made him understand the value other people placed on their children as well. He was a murderer, and worse, a child murderer. He deserved to die. To the OP I dont think it's practical for the Lord to perform summary mass executions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBean Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 He didnt lose all three sons to Jaime, he lost two. Not to mention that his daughter actually wanted him to leave one of his older sons to look after the castle while he was away. He didn't listen to her and brought both his sons with him, and apparently didn't expect that one or both of them might die in this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Martell Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Should Robb really have to personally behead every traitor/criminal under his command? There was a group of Karstark men who participated in the murder, and Rickard Karstark was the original perpetrator and the man who led the murders. When Ned executed the deserter, the deserter was alone. He was the only man responsible and led his own actions. I think the distinction comes from who was the leader in the crime. When I read the Jon chapter in which he gave Janos Slynt the death he so very much deserved, I interpreted his change of mind as to the manner of death as him realizing that simply ordering Slynt to be hanged would be a mistake, it would be disrespectful, and would be an insult to Eddard's memory. He realized that the proper way of doing it would be to behead Slynt himself. If Janos had let's say 5 men conspiring with him to resist Jon, then I'm sure Jon would have ordered those 5 hanged, and Janos would have still been beheaded by Jon himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerJeremiahLouistark Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 People always say Robb lost the North but no one seems to remember he is a child, and unlike Joffrey he actually rules. Plus I don't think Robb ever wanted to be king. And the Northmen are all pretty damned wild and crazy. People are too hard on him, he made mistakes, but did what he thought was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 He didnt lose all three sons to Jaime, he lost two.Harrion Karstark was captured by the Lannisters. The fact that Rickard would murder two Lannister hostages when his remaining son is still captive is rather mind-boggling for me.Rickard was a selfish man, I feel for him losing his sons, but this should have made him understand the value other people placed on their children as well.He was a murderer, and worse, a child murderer. He deserved to die.To the OP I dont think it's practical for the Lord to perform summary mass executions.Yes, you are correct, which brings to mind, is Harrion dead or still captive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolate_dream Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 He was a murderer, and worse, a child murderer. He deserved to die.To the OP I dont think it's practical for the Lord to perform summary mass executions.Why didn't he punish his mother for releasing Jaime though? He made exceptions for his mother but not for his men. That's no way to be a king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father of Hosts Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Why didn't he punish his mother for releasing Jaime though? He made exceptions for his mother but not for his men. That's no way to be a king.You mean why didn't he personally behead his mother?Nobody is following a king that executes his mother. Plus, she was his mother. And she didn't murder anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Man Has Said Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Robb didn't want to get executioner's elbow. :rofl: :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.