Skip to main content

The real reason I believe why Robb Stark failed in "Game of Thrones"

Major Spoiler Alert for Seasons 1-3 of “Game of Thrones” so read at your own risk!
The fall of Robb Stark of Winterfell also known as the “The King in the North” is one of the most tragic stories in Game of Thrones; there’s no denying that. The young wolf was betrayed by those who swore allegiance to him, saw his beautiful wife and unborn child gutted and lost everything he ever loved and fought for. The most common reasoning for Robb’s downfall is that he broke his vow to marry a daughter of Walder Frey and while this is certainly a large component of his downfall it was not the only cause of it. Quite frankly I don’t even think it was his worst mistake.
Robb Stark was a brilliant strategist and he knew how to motivate his fellow northerners in the War of the Five Kings, yet he still made “stupid mistakes” like his father as his own sister, Sansa, put it last season. Robb won every battle and still lost the war, so it makes sense that he must have made some rather foolish mistakes along the way. In season 3 of the show, the King in the North has decided to attack the HQ, if you will, of the Lannisters, Casterly Rock. Twyin Lannister was Robb’s primary adversary and Casterly Rock was his home as well as a supplier of gold and power for Twyin so taking the stronghold would’ve proven quite fruitful. Most of all, Casterly Rock falling at the hands of Robb would’ve shown the seven kingdoms that Twyin Lannister isn’t invincible and can be beaten. Robb may have succeeded in this noble endeavor if he had the right troops.
It’s hard to win a war without soldiers, especially good ones, and Robb has little shortage of that as he won every battle. The Bannerman of House Stark proved to be formidable foes for the Lannisters and perhaps the best of Robb’s bannerman was House Karstark of Karhold which made up half of the young wolf’s forces. Lord Rickard Karstark, the Lord of Karhold, had a tragic story of his own in the War of the Five Kings. His two sons tied in the war; one was killed in the field of battle and the other was strangled by Jamie Lannister during an escape attempt. Lord Karstark’s thirst for vengeance became unquenchable towards the Lannisters which led to him betraying Robb’s, his King’s, orders when he murdered two captive innocent Lannister boys, Willem and Martyn, in cold blood. Karstark’s “revenge” greatly upset Robb and thus Lord Karstark was executed for treason by the King in the North himself. This didn’t sit well the rest of the Karstark army leading to their abandonment of Robb’s cause shortly after their Lord’s execution. Remember that the Karstarks made up half of the North’s forces?
There were many who counselled against Robb executing Lord Karstark but instead to keep him as a hostage to preserve the featly of his army, but Robb’s honor got the better of him just like his headless father. Obviously, Robb couldn’t march on Casterly Rock and unfold his master plan with half his army depleted. There was only one family that could possible fill the void left by the Karstarks, the Freys. Lord Walder Frey was the man Robb betrayed by breaking his vow to marry one of his daughters which led to the Freys betraying Robb as well in the Red Wedding. My overall point here is that if Robb has just kept Rickard Karstark alive as a hostage than the young wolf’s army would still be a competent strength for the attack on Casterly Rock and he wouldn’t have needed to ask a Lord he betrayed for help which means no Red Wedding.

Now I know that’s hypothetical, but it seems rather plausible to me. Robb’s betrayal almost seems inevitable after he broke his vow to Walder Frey in hindsight. If only Robb had left his honor at the door just once to spare Lord Karstark and preserve his army, then I do believe the War of the Five Kings may have turned out differently but alas Robb did the honorable thing and it cost him everything.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Dead Redemption's brilliant opening

Rockstar games has established itself as the best when it comes to the open-world sandbox videogames due to their wildly popular Grand Theft Auto series among other brilliant games the famed studio has produced including my personal favorite game of all time, “Red Dead Redemption”.  With the sequel releasing next spring, I'd like to revisit this legendary game. Before I first played Red Dead, I wasn’t much of a Western fan until the story of a former outlaw hunting down his old gang to save those he loves in the dying wild west changed my life. If I were to convey everything I love about his beautiful game this post would turn into a novel so today I’m just going to explain how brilliant “Red Dead Redemption” is just from the opening scene. “Red Dead Redemption” presents an opening that perfectly establishes everything the gamer needs to know about the world, story and characters. A variety of people exit a steamboat from preachers in black to ladies in fancy dresses and one o...

Calling for the abolishment of Thursday Night Football

Hey everybody! I know I haven't posted for awhile, I've been really busy with school these past few weeks. I recently finished a research paper for my English 100 class here at WKU and I'd really like to share it. Enjoy! Any Given Sunday…….and Thursday: Calling for the abolishment of TNF games             The National Football League (NFL) has been implementing primetime slots for marquee matchups since the creation of Monday Night Football (MNF) in 1970 and Sunday Night Football (SNF) in 1987. These programs drew high ratings for the NFL week in and week out. These games were also practical times for the players. The players had as much time to rest after a hard-fought football game if they were playing on SNF or MNF and got to play under the bright lights, so it was a win-win for everyone. Ten years ago, the NFL changed this formula by implementing Thursday Night Football (TNF) games which were only held some weeks at first. Today, however, TNF...

"Blade Runner: 2049" Film Review

Before I delve into my thoughts on “Blade Runner: 2049” allow me to divulge some valuable information regarding the film. “Blade Runner: 2049” is a sequel to Ridley Scott’s “Bladerunner” which released in 1982 to a mostly negative response. It wasn’t until years later that the film gained a bit of a cult following and eventually became a hailed masterpiece by many. I watched the theatrical cut of “Bladerunner” the night before I saw 2049 and I very much like it. However, there are many cuts of “Bladerunner” and I’ve been told by reliable sources that the final cut released in 2007 is the one to watch but I only had access to the theatrical cut. After viewing 2049 I am very excited to watch the final cut of the original film as well as see 2049 again.  I would recommend seeing the original “Bladerunner” before going to see the sequel as watching the original will mostly help to establish the state of the world of Bladerunner and increase your enjoyment of the sequel.   N...