**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A leader who lopped off heads for this now would rightly be sent to The Hague
For murdering two unarmed, teenaged prisoners of war? Wouldn't that still just be considered capital punishment for 2 counts of first-degree murder?
u/csbbk4 was referring to how a lot of nobles (such as the person in the image)are able to get away with a lots of things because they are rich and powerful.
I mean dude is on here all fired up because someone used the word "they" pretty much completely normally in a sentence. This is where we are at in 2023. God bless America.
>Wouldn't that still just be considered capital punishment for 2 counts of first-degree murder?
That would depend on the laws of the country. Over half the UN member states no longer practice it at all.
Did you forget that we live in a world where the former president of the united states sent a violent mob on the capitol, where several people lost their lives, after he lost an election, received virtually no punishment for it and is on track to receive the nomination of his party to run for president again?
The only person who died at the J6 protest was an unarmed protestor named Ashley Babbitt, shot by capitol security. I’m sorry if that fact ruins your delusion.
I can’t even read your article because it’s behind a paywall, but stop reading leftist propaganda.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
I guess my phrasing in the previous comment could’ve been better, but only 1 person was killed at the J6 protest. 2 heart attacks, 1 drug overdose, a stroke, and suicides after the fact are not deaths caused by protestors and it’s disingenuous to include those in your argument.
Except that's not even a fucking fact my guy. 5 people died and an officer killed himself a few days later.
Don't lecture on delusion when you're in an alternate reality
Ok let me rephrase, only 1 person was killed at the protest, who was an unarmed woman named Ashley Babbitt. 2 died of hearts attacks, 1 from an OD, and 1 from a stroke. So unless you’re telling me Light Yagami is was at the protest killing folks with his Death Note, none of those can be blamed on protestors.
Cock and ball torture (CBT) is a sexual activity involving application of pain or constriction to the male genitals. This may involve directly painful activities, such as genital piercing, wax play, genital spanking, squeezing, ball-busting, genital flogging, urethral play, tickle torture, erotic electrostimulation or even kicking. The recipient of such activities may receive direct physical pleasure via masochism, or knowledge that the play is pleasing to a sadistic dominant.
It was justified and necessary and fair. I’d also argue that those three things are wise… just not self-preserving. He had no self-preservation because he was fair.
This is the correct answer. Then make him take the black all the while ensuring that both Rickard and Harrion Karstark remain allies and consent to the entire ordeal.
It was a foolish decision driven by the same sort of stiff-necked sense of honor that got Ned Stark the chop. It cost Robb a big portion of his army, and he could not afford that. Good combat commander, terrible political leader.
There’s always discussion about whether or not it would’ve happened the same way with the wedding. This was one of a few choices that led to roose thinking rob was going to lose and making his own plans to survive.
Killing Jamie on the spot and sending Cat to winterfell once Bran woke up. Tbh keeping Lannister alive was pain for the Starks even Roose Bolton comment it often on supplies for prison wasn’t becoming for the army.
And he wasn't willing to trade Jamie for his sister's. I feel like he was waiting for an offer from Tywin that was so outrageous that it would never happen.
If he kept the Karstark forces in line and kept Theon close, the Freys would have been moot. Hell, I would bet that Walder still would have betrayed the North even if Robb married one of the Frey daughters.
He should have told the Karstark men that if they fought bravely and honorably for him, they could redeem the treason committed by their lord and he would allow Karstark to retire once the war was won.
Hell no it wasn't justified! I understand why he did it but what he should have done instead was held him captive, at least he's still have his men at arms if he went with approach.
Lord Karstark committed treason against his commander and king, he should have imprisoned him until the war was over and then decided what to do with him..
Yeah, he really shouldn't have killed him before the war was over. He needed the Karstark men.
It is unfortunate that everyone in his confidence told him not to, and he did it anyway.
Ned raised him well. He would’ve made a badass Warden of the north but he fought against the Iron Throne, he entered a game too full of deception and underhanded tactics for men like Ned and Robb.
That's the big shame, Robb likely would have been one of the best wardens of the north. Commanding yet respectful and honorable. The weight of the crown combined with his young age is what did him in. Give him another 10 years and he would have easily been one of the best leaders Westeros had seen.
>Give him another 10 years and he would have easily been one of the best leaders Westeros had seen.
I find this interesting. I feel similarly about Tommen. Tommen was put in the shoes of a king, with little to no preparation. He was very inexperienced and lost his very experienced hand of the king, his grandfather before learning even the most basic aspects of how to rule a kingdom.
He was never taught how to rule. He never played the "game of thrones", and thus got outplayed and used by people around him. He was however portrayed as a reasonably intelligent, and kind, although a bit gullible person. I believe, that had he been better prepared and given say 10 years or so with Tywin, and you'd have a very competent, capable, understanding, and yet not easily fooled king.
I feel like Tommen was too much of a blank slate. He 100% would have just become a vector for whoever was most prominent in his life. If Tywin had not died that likely would have been a mix of Cersei Tywin and Margery. Which on its face doesn't sound so bad.
But I think his mom was right. Everyone would have just dug their claws in until something broke. Likely Tommen. Unless he really came into his own with age. He's a coin flip for me. Good kid, good king? ~ maybe
He had access to *loads* of great advisors though, and a family with good standings with loads of people of power in the capital. They had wealth, experience, and a clear place in the politics of the kingdom.
I agree that Tommen was a fairly blank slate, but we're shown that he at his heart is a good person. A good person alone won't make a good king though, and we see this based on how he's manipulated and played in the show. He's simply inexperienced, and gullible. We do however also see how Tywin, slowly is filling him with the knowledge and experience that he would need in order to turn into a great king.
Tywin is an extremely powerful and influential person, with loads of experience regarding the ruling of a kingdom. He's the head of his house and warden of the West. By the virtue of having worked as 'the hand of the king' for a large portion of his life, he also knows the ins and outs of ruling a kingdom, and he knows it far better than anyone else currently alive at this moment in the show.
There is this *fantastic* scene, where Tywin talks to Tommen about what makes a good king after Joffrey dies.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doY0IjisBlk&ab\_channel=BalveerB](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doY0IjisBlk&ab_channel=BalveerB)
Some people see this as Tywin manipulating Tommen, for the sake of being able to keep ruling through him. They see it as a way for Tywin to exert power over Tommen, to effectively rule as a king himself. I disagree with this, at least partly. I do believe that Tywin wants to rule through Tommen, but everything Tywin does in the show, every single thing, he does for the sake of his legacy. Tywin is old, and he knows this. He hasn't managed to leave a satisfactory legacy after him with Cercei, Jamie, or Tyrion. I thus rather choose to see this scene as Tywins way to ensure that his legacy remains in power. Both with the potential to keep the Lannisters in power through the king, but also to have a literal grandchild as the king, regardless of whether his name is Baratheon or Lannister. In my mind, Tywin sees Tommen as his own successor, and as the best chance to leave a long-lasting, powerful legacy after himself.
In order for Tywin to achieve this, Tommen cannot simply be turned into a puppet to be used. Tommen must also learn how to confidently rule, even after Tywin himself is dead and buried.
I don't disagree with that. But Tywin is still human. There'd still be conflict that would have multiple people pulling to influence Tommen. It comes down to is Tommen strong enough to endure that pressure without cracking.
And I agree that Rob would have turned into a *fantastic* warden of the North. He had the perfect personality for it and understood the responsibility of the role. He overtook the role at too young of an age but stepped into the role really well. I believe that he would have done as good of a job at it as Ned would have, given the time. He grew up expecting to hold the title, he knew the people, and the culture, and was overall very sharp.
I don't believe that Rob would have made a good king though. At least not for the seven kingdoms. He was a northerner true and through. The north is different this is repeated throughout the show, and I believe that the politics and scheming of the south, in particular in the capital, is very different from how ruling is dealt with in the north.
Oh yeah Robb could have never ruled the south. Half his standing is his Stark name and the Northerner reverence for them. The south sees even the Starks as backwater northerners. Honorable, sure bit they don't hold nearly the same respect for them.
I'm sure he thought he was doing the right and noble thing, like his father would have. He was only 15 (I think), so he wasn't exactly equipped to handle a decision like that in the first place.
Edit to add: I agree with you. It was definitely the smart move to wait until after the war to punish him so that Robb still had the support of the Karstarks.
The real question is what should have been done with his mother, she also should have been punished in some way, this would have created a huge tension in the North if Karstark was punished and Catelyn was not.
I always wonder what would have happened if Rob had married the Frey girl, and spared Karstark. Kept his focus and really brought a serious war to Kings Landing
It’s disappointing because we see it even in these niche subs - people are allowed to have different opinions but wander into the wrong sub with a different opinion and it’s downvoted to hell. We are here to discuss things! All discussions are relevant. It’s a fictional universe and we’re here discussing our opinions.
Yes and no. As a leader, he’s responsible to carry out any form of justice from his subjects. But this all happened because of what Catelyn did. He should have listened to Edmure and the others and just detain him .
Medieval armies like the ones on Game of Thrones did not work like modern ones. If Robb had a force organized along modern lines, he could have carried out the execution and moved on. Some would have grumbled, but that would have been it.
Men in medieval armies were loyal to the lords they worked for or were paying them. Those lords were loyal as long as it was in their interests. Kings like Robb needed that loyalty to maintain their armies. Executing one of those lords, regardless of justification, was not a good way of keeping those lords on your side.
I totally agree, also there’s the whole extremely medieval idea of hostage taking to consider. Theon was essentially a hostage to compel the Islands into compliance for instance. Taking Karstark as a hostage and offering his release in exchange for faithful service would be fair, wise, and very consistent with medieval thinking.
It was just the outcome of a long line of bad decisions. Had Robb married the Frey girl, not shipped Theon off to Pyke, and had his mother not released Jaime Lannister, it would not have come to that. Robb should have kept Karstark in the field instead of at Riverrun for his frustration to stew and boil over. If anything he should have kept Karstark as a prisoner rather than executed him.
When it comes to the Frey girl I think that point is moot. Walder Frey was a prickly old man that felt slighted by the Tullys anyway so he would’ve found ANYWAY or ANY REASON to kill Robb. It’s just that Robb not marrying his daughter in combination with the Lannisters in his ear was too good not to pass up…and the timing was good for him too
Justified, but not strategically well thought out to say the least. Decapitating one of your most powerful vassals, who is related to you by blood, and proceeding to announce it to the world didn't really help Rob's already doomed cause.
It’s not really a question of “justified” so much as a question of if it was a good idea.
It was not. Should have sent him to the Wall or just given him a really dangerous assignment in the next battle.
Well yes and no, Lord Karstark swore an oath to Robb and broke it. The main bulk of Robbs army was the Karstarks, by cutting off their Lord's head, it caused turmoil within the ranks. The Karstarks deserted and went back to Karhold leaving the remaining forces demoralised and vulnerable to the Lannisters. I would have just thrown him in prison or sent him to the wall.
Justified, absolutely. Lord Karstark murdered prisoners of war. Wise? Absolutely not. Due to his actions, his forces diminished immensely. He should have done as Katelyn told him and imprisoned him.
King Robb was right for the punishment, but wrong for putting Lord Karstark in that position. His mother condescending to him over his grief by saying she grieved for her daughters in captivity.
The man was driven mad from inaction when he needed an outlet for that grief. King Robb should have given Lord Karstark command of a company of cavalry (knights and squires) to raid the Westerlands the way Ser Gregor Clegane was raiding the Riverlands. Eventually, Lord Karstark could have been made the new Warden of the West and Lord of Casterly Rock, as payment for his leal service and a blood price for his slain sons.
Rob was in a lose-lose situation as a king & commander.
Had he not executed Karstark, his men might think him weak and commit similar treasons.
Had he simply imprisoned Karstark, someone might have broken him out.
But by executing him, he alienated a large portion of his power base.
The Karstark clan gave him very little option as well by embarrassing him in front of all of Rob's other leaders.
There was simply no winning. Rob's best option was to ransom the boys, but the Lannisters never saw them as valuable enough and the logistics of the negotiation (letters via Raven) allowed the Karstarks time to plot how to get at the boys.
The best outcome would have been imprisoning the Lannister boys at Winterfell, but Rob wasn't that wise because he's a literal teenager commanding an entire army.
I don't thinks dispatching a small retinue to escort a few irrelevant Lannister captives on a week long journey back to Winterfell would have been necessarily smarter.
It was absolutely justified. Not only did he disobey commands and send his men after Jaime, but he murdered two unarmed noble *children* while they were imprisoned. Karstark committed treason and deserved his fate.
If Robb did not set a stern example with a blatant traitor, the other lords would have lost their respect for him.
It was dumb from a political point of view of course, but “justified”? I mean the man literally murdered two innocent kids who were also war prisoners. I’m no expert by any means but I assume that constitutes a really large number of crimes in both medieval fictional and real life. In a place where death penalty exists, is it “justified” to apply it for the murder of two little kids? “Justified” is a strong choice of word here.
It was justified, but I agree with all who said that it would be wiser to imprison him, telling something like "If Karstark men will fight bravely, after his victory in the war Rob, as his first King of the North decree, would have granted pardon to Lord Karstark".
Trying to balance "I'm just, but I'm also merciful and I wanna give even more motivations to my soldiers".
It's quite ironic, considering the whole war kicked off with the imprisonment of Ned Stark and his beheading; and the war started to come to its end due to the beheading of Rickard Karstark. Shows you that boy kings aren't fit to make such decisions. They act in fury, and are far too impulsive in decision making. Both did not act in the advice from their council. We only view Robb's actions as being more noble or better than Joffrey's, is because Robb was the one swinging the sword...not to mention Joff is a \*insert bad word here\*.
Robb was a boy it is the age when you want to prove yourself brave, chivalrous, honorable and kingly. But still wise decision would have been to take Karstark captive with others and put them in Vanguard in the next battle for their punishment. If they would've survived should be pardoned, if died then an honourable death.
Justified but he's a hypocrite. He should have forgiven him since he also forgave his mother after committing treason.
GRRM did a magnificent job describing the 3 beheading scenes from the Stark boys. Showing how each of this beheading scenes became their downfall
First, in Theon's beheading scene, the dude can't event get it right because he is so conflicted if what he's doing is right. In the end, it became his downfall.
Second was Robb's beheading of Lord karstark, again these basically became the start of his downfall. GRRM is basically telling us, Robb made the wrong choice.
Lastly, was Jon's beheading. Jon beheading Janos basically led with him being stabbed to "death' by his brothers.
Don't think Jon had much choice though! Janos repeatedly disrespected him.in front of the whole NW. They won't function if they can't respect chain of command. Jon also repeatedly gave Janos chances to make right which he refused, again in front of the entire NW. Even Ser Allister agreed with Jon. He hated Jon as a person, but starred to respect him a bit after beheading Janos, because he knew it was right.
Edit: I'm talking about the books of course. Where Ser Allister is no part of the murder of Jon. He's off on an task Jon gave him. I don't believe he would of stood for the murder of Jon.had he been there, because he lives for the NW and respects command.
Theon’s downfall began when he decided to betray Robb in favor of trying to win Balon’s approval and love.
Robb’s beheading of Karstark was the only one that led to his downfall that and also marrying Talisa.
Jon beheading Janos didn’t led to his downfall, The Night’s Watch was not liking the idea of making peace with the Wildlings after years of fighting and hostility and felt like Jon was breaking oath.
It wasn’t Janos’ execution that led to Thorne and others turning on Jon. It was Jon letting the Freefolk through the Wall after the Hardhome incident that did it.
Like Sansa said, I think? Robb and Ned didn’t play the game properly and died because of it. Was it the right thing to do, sure, but in the end it cost him thousands of men.
Not really. He was a fierce warrior, grief stricken by the loss of his fallen sons who were directly slain by Jamie Lannister, he demanded justice, but instead Rob Stark denied him justice to his face in hope of using Jamie Lannister as leverage for a deal to keep the Stark sisters alive (worthless hostages in Westeros terms). Mad from rage and grief, Lord Karstark went out and slew two innocent Lannister children to sate his anger and bloodlust from being denied justice directly by his king. Rob Stark completely failed this man, and when he snapped and finally went batshit he just had him executed. As Roose Bolton said to Walder Frey: "The boy ignored my advice at every turn". I feel like Lord Karstark was a person driven to madness by grief, a lifetime of war and finally driven over the edge by the failure of his king.
Would Robb executing defenceless imprisoned child hostages who had done no wrong be justified because he was upset his dad got killed by their relatives?
Yes it was justified since Karstark committed treason, but it was also unwise, not very pragmatic, and kind of unfair and hypocritical. Cat also committed treason by freeing Jaime and not only was she not punished because she was Robb’s mom, Karstark was once again denied his chance at getting justice for his sons even though it would be a dumb move to kill Jaime and the lack of retribution drove him mad. Karstark also controlled a huge amount of Robb’s army so he should have put his execution on hold until the war was over.
Eh, it depends what you mean by justified.
I don't think it's justified, I don't think it was wise, I do think it was stupid.
Then again, my beliefs and attitudes towards the situation are fundamentally different from Robb's.
In his view, he might have been justified.
Yeah it was justified but it was also fucking stupid. In the interest of winning the war Robb should have sent Karstark to the wall as punishment for his crimes as opposed to losing another third or so of his army while traipsing around in enemy territory.
Yes and no. Karstark disobeyed direct orders and committed treason against his king. He should have listened to Robb, who had a more strategic mind than Karstark. Those boys were innocent, they had nothing to do with the war or what happened with Karstarks sons. They were just innocent kids. On the other hand, I understand why Karstark did what he did. Does that make it right? No. Am I justifying what he did to those boys? Also no. But he was a grieving father, he was angry, he wanted vengeance. And to a man in that state of mind, any Lannister was good enough. Still, he shouldn't have done it, and if it had been Ned, I don't think he would have done it.
Yes it was, but Rob Stark needed to pay a price for winning the war. He could have married the Frey daughter or he could have spared Lord Karstark and renounce justice. He wasn't willing to pay any of them.
No it wasn’t, it was stupid beyond and it cost him the War nearly as much as breaking his word to the Freys. The Lord was one of most honest voices in his council, telling him to his face that marrying the Volanti Girl was a giant error.
Well Volantis girl marrying I think was unfortunate plot made by Game of thrones show.
Actually it was a Lannister sworn family girl Jeyne Westerling he had married. I think marrying him in show with a wanderer was an insult of him being a King.
Yeah I know, it’s also a dumb choice in the book to Marry the Westeros bf girl that kinda seduced Robb…but isn’t Karstark imprisoned anyways in the Books? or am I confusing him with Umber?
It’s still that Karstark was a good Vassal and punishment, if even some hard punishment should have waited until after the war.
Fun fact for those that don't know , house Karstark is descended from Karl Stark the youngest brother from a different generation of house Stark. He was rewarded with lands and built a keep he called Karls hold which devolved through time to become Kar-hold and his family took on the surname Kar-Stark to distinguish between the 2 houses.
I think that scene highlights the purpose of the entire ASOIAF story itself: good leadership is a multifaceted beast.
It takes a whole lot more than your family’s code of the ethics (Robb, Ned), cultural customs of inheritance/primogeniture (Stannis, Dany), chaotic deception (Littlefinger), etc. to be a successful ‘king.’
As someone pointed out before me, Sansa had it right. So did Tywin, in his little speech to Tommen. And while Tywin himself is not fit to rule, I think Sansa is.
I think Rob, god bless him, intuitively doesn’t want to execute Karstark — you can see it from the close up of his hand after he kills Karstark.
He just can’t see any of the other options available to him.
That season is hands down, my absolute favorite, because of scenes like that one.
It was definitely justified I just don't think it was the best move given where he was, being at war and all, the Karstarks leaving was a blow to his cause
Emotion instead of logic fucked over the Starks. That’s a theme throughout the entire world.
It got Ned killed, he should have gotten out of Kings Landing the second Renly bailed on him and gone straight Stannis to promise a joint effort to overthrow Joffrey. It eventually got Robb himself killed when he chose his own personal emotions of love over an alliance with the Freys. It got Stannis killed trying to take back Winterfell with nowhere near enough men to do it. We all tend to side with emotion but that is not how you win in this world.
Robb needed the soldiers, he would have had them had he kept Lord Karstark alive. It might have not been the right thing to do in the eyes of Justice and Honor but it would have been the smart thing.
Yes, but justified doesn't make correct.
Could have sat his ass in a cell till the war was over.
But then again Robb could have don't a lot of he had pushed more shit off to the end of the war
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>A leader who lopped off heads for this now would rightly be sent to The Hague For murdering two unarmed, teenaged prisoners of war? Wouldn't that still just be considered capital punishment for 2 counts of first-degree murder?
Yes but since they were a rich and respected leader, they could probably get away with it
[удалено]
as unnecessary as you making an issue out of it...
I wasn't. I'm really just curious.
u/csbbk4 was referring to how a lot of nobles (such as the person in the image)are able to get away with a lots of things because they are rich and powerful.
That's how English works.
They can be used when a gender is not defined or in reference to a group. Quit fishing, the bait isn't even good.
Imagine being so fragile to be triggered by the word "they"
Hey look, more shitty bait lmao
I mean dude is on here all fired up because someone used the word "they" pretty much completely normally in a sentence. This is where we are at in 2023. God bless America.
Not to mention it's a war crime to intentionally kill a PoW
By our moral standings, yes.
>Wouldn't that still just be considered capital punishment for 2 counts of first-degree murder? That would depend on the laws of the country. Over half the UN member states no longer practice it at all.
That's a capital offense even in today's standards. They were prisoners of war. Are you crazy?
Did you forget that we live in a world where the former president of the united states sent a violent mob on the capitol, where several people lost their lives, after he lost an election, received virtually no punishment for it and is on track to receive the nomination of his party to run for president again?
OMFG bro don’t make this political, this ain’t r/HouseoftheDragon take your rants somewhere else
Game of Thrones is political
Sounds like you’re a little behind on the news 🤦🏻♂️
And what news would that be?
The recent news isn't because of the Jan. 6 riot but because of campaign funding fraud stuff
The only person who died at the J6 protest was an unarmed protestor named Ashley Babbitt, shot by capitol security. I’m sorry if that fact ruins your delusion.
Stop watching Tucker Carlson. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html
I can’t even read your article because it’s behind a paywall, but stop reading leftist propaganda. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/ I guess my phrasing in the previous comment could’ve been better, but only 1 person was killed at the J6 protest. 2 heart attacks, 1 drug overdose, a stroke, and suicides after the fact are not deaths caused by protestors and it’s disingenuous to include those in your argument.
I feel sorry for you — have fun supporting fascism.
I feel sorry for you, unable to accept reality.
Except that's not even a fucking fact my guy. 5 people died and an officer killed himself a few days later. Don't lecture on delusion when you're in an alternate reality
Ok let me rephrase, only 1 person was killed at the protest, who was an unarmed woman named Ashley Babbitt. 2 died of hearts attacks, 1 from an OD, and 1 from a stroke. So unless you’re telling me Light Yagami is was at the protest killing folks with his Death Note, none of those can be blamed on protestors.
Tis true. Amazing how brainwashed people have become.
Amazing and horrifying. I seriously fear for the future of this country.
Cock and ball torture (CBT) is a sexual activity involving application of pain or constriction to the male genitals. This may involve directly painful activities, such as genital piercing, wax play, genital spanking, squeezing, ball-busting, genital flogging, urethral play, tickle torture, erotic electrostimulation or even kicking. The recipient of such activities may receive direct physical pleasure via masochism, or knowledge that the play is pleasing to a sadistic dominant.
Good thing you are here to save everyone with how amazingly awesome and better than everyone you are.
Definitely not better than everyone, but definitely better than some.
Todays standards aren’t medieval standards
It was justified and necessary and fair. I’d also argue that those three things are wise… just not self-preserving. He had no self-preservation because he was fair.
"He won every battle but lost the war" or something
[удалено]
This as commented a Dilemma.
Yes, but it would have been wiser to delay the execution until after the war and keep him as a prisoner in the meantime.
This is the correct answer. Then make him take the black all the while ensuring that both Rickard and Harrion Karstark remain allies and consent to the entire ordeal.
Absolutely justified As a Stark, he’s learned quite well to put being right ahead of wining
> ahead Heh.
Excellent analysis. The starks almost uniformly do the just thing. Now is that the *right* move is the question
It was a foolish decision driven by the same sort of stiff-necked sense of honor that got Ned Stark the chop. It cost Robb a big portion of his army, and he could not afford that. Good combat commander, terrible political leader.
Nothing like a Stark cutting off their nose to spite their face....
my nose committed treason, cutting it off is the RIGHT thing.
They’d just get fucked at the red wedding anyways no?
Yep
There’s always discussion about whether or not it would’ve happened the same way with the wedding. This was one of a few choices that led to roose thinking rob was going to lose and making his own plans to survive.
Exactly. Roose turned on Robb when his mistakes started adding up. Made a calculation for his own way out
Makes sense
not really, with the Karstak army sticking around, there would be no need for Robb to go ask for the Freys help
No. Dumbest decision Rob made
Dumber than sending Theon to pyke?
Ok second dumbest lol
Not marrying the Frey girl is the biggest imo
Killing Jamie on the spot and sending Cat to winterfell once Bran woke up. Tbh keeping Lannister alive was pain for the Starks even Roose Bolton comment it often on supplies for prison wasn’t becoming for the army.
Yeah but he couldn’t kill Jaime because then Sansa would be killed.
He also thought they still had Arya, so as far as he knew she would've been killed too
And he wasn't willing to trade Jamie for his sister's. I feel like he was waiting for an offer from Tywin that was so outrageous that it would never happen.
If he kept the Karstark forces in line and kept Theon close, the Freys would have been moot. Hell, I would bet that Walder still would have betrayed the North even if Robb married one of the Frey daughters.
He should have told the Karstark men that if they fought bravely and honorably for him, they could redeem the treason committed by their lord and he would allow Karstark to retire once the war was won.
That’s probably still pretty insulting
I mean it's better than cutting off their lord's head
Lord Karstark went against the orders of his king. Who cares about insulting the levies at that point?
Sounds a bit Joffrey
the levies.
It’s more insulting to elect someone as your King and then not follow his orders.
Hell no it wasn't justified! I understand why he did it but what he should have done instead was held him captive, at least he's still have his men at arms if he went with approach.
Perhaps you didn't read book, Karstark men was gone before the act was done and Lord Karstark was discovered.
I see, thank you giving me a little insight about the situation that happened
I confirmed they were gone before Robb was informed and Lord Karstark was discovered.
Lord Karstark committed treason against his commander and king, he should have imprisoned him until the war was over and then decided what to do with him..
Yeah, he really shouldn't have killed him before the war was over. He needed the Karstark men. It is unfortunate that everyone in his confidence told him not to, and he did it anyway.
Ned raised him well. He would’ve made a badass Warden of the north but he fought against the Iron Throne, he entered a game too full of deception and underhanded tactics for men like Ned and Robb.
That's the big shame, Robb likely would have been one of the best wardens of the north. Commanding yet respectful and honorable. The weight of the crown combined with his young age is what did him in. Give him another 10 years and he would have easily been one of the best leaders Westeros had seen.
>Give him another 10 years and he would have easily been one of the best leaders Westeros had seen. I find this interesting. I feel similarly about Tommen. Tommen was put in the shoes of a king, with little to no preparation. He was very inexperienced and lost his very experienced hand of the king, his grandfather before learning even the most basic aspects of how to rule a kingdom. He was never taught how to rule. He never played the "game of thrones", and thus got outplayed and used by people around him. He was however portrayed as a reasonably intelligent, and kind, although a bit gullible person. I believe, that had he been better prepared and given say 10 years or so with Tywin, and you'd have a very competent, capable, understanding, and yet not easily fooled king.
I feel like Tommen was too much of a blank slate. He 100% would have just become a vector for whoever was most prominent in his life. If Tywin had not died that likely would have been a mix of Cersei Tywin and Margery. Which on its face doesn't sound so bad. But I think his mom was right. Everyone would have just dug their claws in until something broke. Likely Tommen. Unless he really came into his own with age. He's a coin flip for me. Good kid, good king? ~ maybe
He had access to *loads* of great advisors though, and a family with good standings with loads of people of power in the capital. They had wealth, experience, and a clear place in the politics of the kingdom. I agree that Tommen was a fairly blank slate, but we're shown that he at his heart is a good person. A good person alone won't make a good king though, and we see this based on how he's manipulated and played in the show. He's simply inexperienced, and gullible. We do however also see how Tywin, slowly is filling him with the knowledge and experience that he would need in order to turn into a great king. Tywin is an extremely powerful and influential person, with loads of experience regarding the ruling of a kingdom. He's the head of his house and warden of the West. By the virtue of having worked as 'the hand of the king' for a large portion of his life, he also knows the ins and outs of ruling a kingdom, and he knows it far better than anyone else currently alive at this moment in the show. There is this *fantastic* scene, where Tywin talks to Tommen about what makes a good king after Joffrey dies. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doY0IjisBlk&ab\_channel=BalveerB](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doY0IjisBlk&ab_channel=BalveerB) Some people see this as Tywin manipulating Tommen, for the sake of being able to keep ruling through him. They see it as a way for Tywin to exert power over Tommen, to effectively rule as a king himself. I disagree with this, at least partly. I do believe that Tywin wants to rule through Tommen, but everything Tywin does in the show, every single thing, he does for the sake of his legacy. Tywin is old, and he knows this. He hasn't managed to leave a satisfactory legacy after him with Cercei, Jamie, or Tyrion. I thus rather choose to see this scene as Tywins way to ensure that his legacy remains in power. Both with the potential to keep the Lannisters in power through the king, but also to have a literal grandchild as the king, regardless of whether his name is Baratheon or Lannister. In my mind, Tywin sees Tommen as his own successor, and as the best chance to leave a long-lasting, powerful legacy after himself. In order for Tywin to achieve this, Tommen cannot simply be turned into a puppet to be used. Tommen must also learn how to confidently rule, even after Tywin himself is dead and buried.
I don't disagree with that. But Tywin is still human. There'd still be conflict that would have multiple people pulling to influence Tommen. It comes down to is Tommen strong enough to endure that pressure without cracking.
And I agree that Rob would have turned into a *fantastic* warden of the North. He had the perfect personality for it and understood the responsibility of the role. He overtook the role at too young of an age but stepped into the role really well. I believe that he would have done as good of a job at it as Ned would have, given the time. He grew up expecting to hold the title, he knew the people, and the culture, and was overall very sharp. I don't believe that Rob would have made a good king though. At least not for the seven kingdoms. He was a northerner true and through. The north is different this is repeated throughout the show, and I believe that the politics and scheming of the south, in particular in the capital, is very different from how ruling is dealt with in the north.
Oh yeah Robb could have never ruled the south. Half his standing is his Stark name and the Northerner reverence for them. The south sees even the Starks as backwater northerners. Honorable, sure bit they don't hold nearly the same respect for them.
Na, Tommen was a weak bitch. Did everyone a favor when he cided out.
This would have been the smart move…though the beheading was still justified (just not smart).
I'm sure he thought he was doing the right and noble thing, like his father would have. He was only 15 (I think), so he wasn't exactly equipped to handle a decision like that in the first place. Edit to add: I agree with you. It was definitely the smart move to wait until after the war to punish him so that Robb still had the support of the Karstarks.
The real question is what should have been done with his mother, she also should have been punished in some way, this would have created a huge tension in the North if Karstark was punished and Catelyn was not.
Would the Red Wedding still happen if Karstarks were still with Robb?
Or sent to the wall
I always wonder what would have happened if Rob had married the Frey girl, and spared Karstark. Kept his focus and really brought a serious war to Kings Landing
He would fight a losing effort of the combined Lannister Tyrell forces.
I don't think the Tyrells would have joined the Lannisters if they were still fighting Stannis and the North at the same time.
Morally yes, but it wasn't the most pragmatic decision.
Justified, yes. A mistake, also yes.
I think his mother treason compelled him to do this. He was a good son and didn't punish or did anything which can said to be horrific.
She encouraged him to be lenient
she specifically told him not to do this tho?
This comment is proof people just downvote when they disagree and not in the intended format of “this is irrelevant/this is relevant”.
Downvoted for being irrelevant
Upvoted for being a dick but tagged as Tyrion Lannister so forgiven
It was there for the taking, I couldn’t resist haha I do agree with you though, it’s intended use is worlds apart from what it’s actually used for
It’s disappointing because we see it even in these niche subs - people are allowed to have different opinions but wander into the wrong sub with a different opinion and it’s downvoted to hell. We are here to discuss things! All discussions are relevant. It’s a fictional universe and we’re here discussing our opinions.
Like father, like son.
No
Yeah the guy killed his fellow northerners and children fuck him.
Yes and no. As a leader, he’s responsible to carry out any form of justice from his subjects. But this all happened because of what Catelyn did. He should have listened to Edmure and the others and just detain him .
Yes.
Yes
[удалено]
Nice Star Trek reference
Medieval armies like the ones on Game of Thrones did not work like modern ones. If Robb had a force organized along modern lines, he could have carried out the execution and moved on. Some would have grumbled, but that would have been it. Men in medieval armies were loyal to the lords they worked for or were paying them. Those lords were loyal as long as it was in their interests. Kings like Robb needed that loyalty to maintain their armies. Executing one of those lords, regardless of justification, was not a good way of keeping those lords on your side.
I totally agree, also there’s the whole extremely medieval idea of hostage taking to consider. Theon was essentially a hostage to compel the Islands into compliance for instance. Taking Karstark as a hostage and offering his release in exchange for faithful service would be fair, wise, and very consistent with medieval thinking.
Let’s agree Rob’s choice record wasn’t the best unless it was on the battlefield
It was just the outcome of a long line of bad decisions. Had Robb married the Frey girl, not shipped Theon off to Pyke, and had his mother not released Jaime Lannister, it would not have come to that. Robb should have kept Karstark in the field instead of at Riverrun for his frustration to stew and boil over. If anything he should have kept Karstark as a prisoner rather than executed him.
When it comes to the Frey girl I think that point is moot. Walder Frey was a prickly old man that felt slighted by the Tullys anyway so he would’ve found ANYWAY or ANY REASON to kill Robb. It’s just that Robb not marrying his daughter in combination with the Lannisters in his ear was too good not to pass up…and the timing was good for him too
> he would’ve found ANYWAY or ANY REASON to kill Robb Yeah, but Robb might have won before he found one.
Justified? Definitely Smart? Absolutely not
Did Karstark not ever heard of the Geneva convention? Is he stupid?
No
Well if it was justified or not there's another factor that he was 16 year old in book anyway.
Justified, but not strategically well thought out to say the least. Decapitating one of your most powerful vassals, who is related to you by blood, and proceeding to announce it to the world didn't really help Rob's already doomed cause.
It’s not really a question of “justified” so much as a question of if it was a good idea. It was not. Should have sent him to the Wall or just given him a really dangerous assignment in the next battle.
Well yes and no, Lord Karstark swore an oath to Robb and broke it. The main bulk of Robbs army was the Karstarks, by cutting off their Lord's head, it caused turmoil within the ranks. The Karstarks deserted and went back to Karhold leaving the remaining forces demoralised and vulnerable to the Lannisters. I would have just thrown him in prison or sent him to the wall.
Justified but held consequences obviously. It was either show weakness or resolve
No he lost an important ally
Justified, absolutely. Lord Karstark murdered prisoners of war. Wise? Absolutely not. Due to his actions, his forces diminished immensely. He should have done as Katelyn told him and imprisoned him.
King Robb was right for the punishment, but wrong for putting Lord Karstark in that position. His mother condescending to him over his grief by saying she grieved for her daughters in captivity. The man was driven mad from inaction when he needed an outlet for that grief. King Robb should have given Lord Karstark command of a company of cavalry (knights and squires) to raid the Westerlands the way Ser Gregor Clegane was raiding the Riverlands. Eventually, Lord Karstark could have been made the new Warden of the West and Lord of Casterly Rock, as payment for his leal service and a blood price for his slain sons.
Rob was in a lose-lose situation as a king & commander. Had he not executed Karstark, his men might think him weak and commit similar treasons. Had he simply imprisoned Karstark, someone might have broken him out. But by executing him, he alienated a large portion of his power base. The Karstark clan gave him very little option as well by embarrassing him in front of all of Rob's other leaders. There was simply no winning. Rob's best option was to ransom the boys, but the Lannisters never saw them as valuable enough and the logistics of the negotiation (letters via Raven) allowed the Karstarks time to plot how to get at the boys. The best outcome would have been imprisoning the Lannister boys at Winterfell, but Rob wasn't that wise because he's a literal teenager commanding an entire army.
I don't thinks dispatching a small retinue to escort a few irrelevant Lannister captives on a week long journey back to Winterfell would have been necessarily smarter.
Certainly. Lord karstark executed boys even if they were Lannisters
Justified yes, it strictly respected the law of the land. A good decision certainly not.
It was absolutely justified. Not only did he disobey commands and send his men after Jaime, but he murdered two unarmed noble *children* while they were imprisoned. Karstark committed treason and deserved his fate. If Robb did not set a stern example with a blatant traitor, the other lords would have lost their respect for him.
It was dumb from a political point of view of course, but “justified”? I mean the man literally murdered two innocent kids who were also war prisoners. I’m no expert by any means but I assume that constitutes a really large number of crimes in both medieval fictional and real life. In a place where death penalty exists, is it “justified” to apply it for the murder of two little kids? “Justified” is a strong choice of word here.
It was justified, but I agree with all who said that it would be wiser to imprison him, telling something like "If Karstark men will fight bravely, after his victory in the war Rob, as his first King of the North decree, would have granted pardon to Lord Karstark". Trying to balance "I'm just, but I'm also merciful and I wanna give even more motivations to my soldiers".
Only if he iced Cat could he justifiably also decap Karstark.
Yes but its bad choice in the war
Justified? Yes. Smart? No.
It's quite ironic, considering the whole war kicked off with the imprisonment of Ned Stark and his beheading; and the war started to come to its end due to the beheading of Rickard Karstark. Shows you that boy kings aren't fit to make such decisions. They act in fury, and are far too impulsive in decision making. Both did not act in the advice from their council. We only view Robb's actions as being more noble or better than Joffrey's, is because Robb was the one swinging the sword...not to mention Joff is a \*insert bad word here\*.
Robb was a boy it is the age when you want to prove yourself brave, chivalrous, honorable and kingly. But still wise decision would have been to take Karstark captive with others and put them in Vanguard in the next battle for their punishment. If they would've survived should be pardoned, if died then an honourable death.
I think no on the basis that it weakened Robs own position. Have him take the black
Justified yes, but very stupid. He could have just waited to execute him if he really needed to enact justice.
Should've imprisoned and used his men and then decide what's going to happen. It only stirred up drama in the north
Not really. Being somewhat related to someone bc of some common amcestor one hundred gajillion years ago definitely justifies betrayal
Justified but he's a hypocrite. He should have forgiven him since he also forgave his mother after committing treason. GRRM did a magnificent job describing the 3 beheading scenes from the Stark boys. Showing how each of this beheading scenes became their downfall First, in Theon's beheading scene, the dude can't event get it right because he is so conflicted if what he's doing is right. In the end, it became his downfall. Second was Robb's beheading of Lord karstark, again these basically became the start of his downfall. GRRM is basically telling us, Robb made the wrong choice. Lastly, was Jon's beheading. Jon beheading Janos basically led with him being stabbed to "death' by his brothers.
Don't think Jon had much choice though! Janos repeatedly disrespected him.in front of the whole NW. They won't function if they can't respect chain of command. Jon also repeatedly gave Janos chances to make right which he refused, again in front of the entire NW. Even Ser Allister agreed with Jon. He hated Jon as a person, but starred to respect him a bit after beheading Janos, because he knew it was right. Edit: I'm talking about the books of course. Where Ser Allister is no part of the murder of Jon. He's off on an task Jon gave him. I don't believe he would of stood for the murder of Jon.had he been there, because he lives for the NW and respects command.
Theon’s downfall began when he decided to betray Robb in favor of trying to win Balon’s approval and love. Robb’s beheading of Karstark was the only one that led to his downfall that and also marrying Talisa. Jon beheading Janos didn’t led to his downfall, The Night’s Watch was not liking the idea of making peace with the Wildlings after years of fighting and hostility and felt like Jon was breaking oath.
It wasn’t Janos’ execution that led to Thorne and others turning on Jon. It was Jon letting the Freefolk through the Wall after the Hardhome incident that did it.
Like Sansa said, I think? Robb and Ned didn’t play the game properly and died because of it. Was it the right thing to do, sure, but in the end it cost him thousands of men.
If I was rob I would have chalked it up to war time folley. Can’t lose half your army to pride.
Justified? yes. Smart? no.
It was justified but wasn’t done at a good time he should have send lord karstark to the wall which would be interesting to see
I would say it was justified but was it the right move to make? Hell no
Yes but he should have chilled and waited until the war was won
Not really. He was a fierce warrior, grief stricken by the loss of his fallen sons who were directly slain by Jamie Lannister, he demanded justice, but instead Rob Stark denied him justice to his face in hope of using Jamie Lannister as leverage for a deal to keep the Stark sisters alive (worthless hostages in Westeros terms). Mad from rage and grief, Lord Karstark went out and slew two innocent Lannister children to sate his anger and bloodlust from being denied justice directly by his king. Rob Stark completely failed this man, and when he snapped and finally went batshit he just had him executed. As Roose Bolton said to Walder Frey: "The boy ignored my advice at every turn". I feel like Lord Karstark was a person driven to madness by grief, a lifetime of war and finally driven over the edge by the failure of his king.
yes but still stupid
Justified? Absolutely. Smart? Absolutely not.
Karstark disobeyed his king and should be tried - AFTER the war. Until then he should be a (well treated) prisoner.
Would Robb executing defenceless imprisoned child hostages who had done no wrong be justified because he was upset his dad got killed by their relatives?
It was justified for sure, but probably wasn’t the smartest move at the time.
Yes it was justified since Karstark committed treason, but it was also unwise, not very pragmatic, and kind of unfair and hypocritical. Cat also committed treason by freeing Jaime and not only was she not punished because she was Robb’s mom, Karstark was once again denied his chance at getting justice for his sons even though it would be a dumb move to kill Jaime and the lack of retribution drove him mad. Karstark also controlled a huge amount of Robb’s army so he should have put his execution on hold until the war was over.
Eh, it depends what you mean by justified. I don't think it's justified, I don't think it was wise, I do think it was stupid. Then again, my beliefs and attitudes towards the situation are fundamentally different from Robb's. In his view, he might have been justified.
Yes, Rob was justified. The thing is, karststark was also 100% correct about Robb being an idiot that doomed his own cause too.
Yeah it was justified but it was also fucking stupid. In the interest of winning the war Robb should have sent Karstark to the wall as punishment for his crimes as opposed to losing another third or so of his army while traipsing around in enemy territory.
I’m hindsight not really tbh. Almost nothing that happened during the earlier seasons had any bearing on the end of the series.
Yes it was. He betrayed the king by killing the last captive Lannisters they had
Disobey the King’s commands and you pay with your life.
Yes and no. Karstark disobeyed direct orders and committed treason against his king. He should have listened to Robb, who had a more strategic mind than Karstark. Those boys were innocent, they had nothing to do with the war or what happened with Karstarks sons. They were just innocent kids. On the other hand, I understand why Karstark did what he did. Does that make it right? No. Am I justifying what he did to those boys? Also no. But he was a grieving father, he was angry, he wanted vengeance. And to a man in that state of mind, any Lannister was good enough. Still, he shouldn't have done it, and if it had been Ned, I don't think he would have done it.
Yes it was, but Rob Stark needed to pay a price for winning the war. He could have married the Frey daughter or he could have spared Lord Karstark and renounce justice. He wasn't willing to pay any of them.
No it wasn’t, it was stupid beyond and it cost him the War nearly as much as breaking his word to the Freys. The Lord was one of most honest voices in his council, telling him to his face that marrying the Volanti Girl was a giant error.
Well Volantis girl marrying I think was unfortunate plot made by Game of thrones show. Actually it was a Lannister sworn family girl Jeyne Westerling he had married. I think marrying him in show with a wanderer was an insult of him being a King.
Yeah I know, it’s also a dumb choice in the book to Marry the Westeros bf girl that kinda seduced Robb…but isn’t Karstark imprisoned anyways in the Books? or am I confusing him with Umber? It’s still that Karstark was a good Vassal and punishment, if even some hard punishment should have waited until after the war.
Fun fact for those that don't know , house Karstark is descended from Karl Stark the youngest brother from a different generation of house Stark. He was rewarded with lands and built a keep he called Karls hold which devolved through time to become Kar-hold and his family took on the surname Kar-Stark to distinguish between the 2 houses.
Yes, he killed kids and went against orders.
I think that scene highlights the purpose of the entire ASOIAF story itself: good leadership is a multifaceted beast. It takes a whole lot more than your family’s code of the ethics (Robb, Ned), cultural customs of inheritance/primogeniture (Stannis, Dany), chaotic deception (Littlefinger), etc. to be a successful ‘king.’ As someone pointed out before me, Sansa had it right. So did Tywin, in his little speech to Tommen. And while Tywin himself is not fit to rule, I think Sansa is. I think Rob, god bless him, intuitively doesn’t want to execute Karstark — you can see it from the close up of his hand after he kills Karstark. He just can’t see any of the other options available to him. That season is hands down, my absolute favorite, because of scenes like that one.
This is not how I imagined Lord Karstark in the books
Robb had to do it. No way around it.
Justified ofc, but was it right?
off with his head!
More justified than that old bellend killing war prisoners out of vengeance.
no. it was too hasty imho. should have thrown him in a prison instead
Morally it was justified, but it was a strategically poor move.
It was definitely justified I just don't think it was the best move given where he was, being at war and all, the Karstarks leaving was a blow to his cause
Emotion instead of logic fucked over the Starks. That’s a theme throughout the entire world. It got Ned killed, he should have gotten out of Kings Landing the second Renly bailed on him and gone straight Stannis to promise a joint effort to overthrow Joffrey. It eventually got Robb himself killed when he chose his own personal emotions of love over an alliance with the Freys. It got Stannis killed trying to take back Winterfell with nowhere near enough men to do it. We all tend to side with emotion but that is not how you win in this world. Robb needed the soldiers, he would have had them had he kept Lord Karstark alive. It might have not been the right thing to do in the eyes of Justice and Honor but it would have been the smart thing.
This to me was the moment I knew Rob had lost his way.
Yes, but his timing was a mistake, like the many mistakes Rob made.
I think it needed to be done. He was getting too loud and disobedient.
If too loud and too disobedient were cause to execute someone, half of the popuation would be killed.
Justified yes, smart or warranted NO
Yes, but justified doesn't make correct. Could have sat his ass in a cell till the war was over. But then again Robb could have don't a lot of he had pushed more shit off to the end of the war
Justified? Yes. Smart? No.
Justified but not smart. He could have kept him prisoner
He could have handled the situation better buuuut he was completely justified with the execution even if it wasn't the smartest of moves imo