Jon would have done much better than Robb

[Ingelheim]

You know you've created the perfect post for Jon haters right?

And no, even as a Jon fan I don't think he would have done it better. Because he couldn't.

[Modelex]

No they wouldn't-Blackfish refused to take the Black because he thought that Jon Snow was a lannister spy. Trust me if your brother in law fucked another woman and then had her child you wouldn't rush to support said child would you? The Tully's provided men, and battle commanders. Who led the vanguard at Oxcross? Blackfish. Who led the outriders and defeated the lannisters at the camps? Blackfish. Who kept Rivverun for the Starks until the might of the crown was brought down? Blackfish

Obviously Jon bein legitimized by Ned and leading an army would make him a lot less likely to be viewed as a Lannister spy. He was only viewed as such because of Catelyn's unsubstantiated narrative that painted him as the Anti-Christ

Robb didn't trust him, half the north didn't trust him. But they needed him, his 5,000 men and his battle experience. The only way to stop Roose pulling the RW is too kill him. How do you think Jon would of stopped Roose? Would he of asked him nicely?

Putting him in command of a large portion of the Northern army and believing all of his explanations shows that he trusted him

No, No,No. Balon didn't want an alliance. Do you understand that? He was already planning to attack the North. Theon as a hostage is worthless as shown later on-have you even read the books?

Balon would have been more predisposed to an alliance if it was not for a poorly worded letter and an even poorer envoy as I have said

Yes they do kill him-in fact Roose Bolton does. The KL release was not popular at all, neither would a trade off been. Hence why Karstark rebelled

Did Roose kill him because Jaime was released? No, he did it because Robb was a loser. Karstark rebelled because Jaime was released for nothing and Robb was unwilling to punish the culprit.

Yeah sure-Jon was forced to fuck Yrgittee.... poor jon

To successfully infiltrate the wildlings

Yes Robb was much better in AGOT personality wise-hence why his bannerman crown him

No, he was crowned because he was more pliable

JON ALSO GETS STABBED BY HIS MEN YOU KNOW

This goes to the current state of the NW and Bowen's ignorance more than anything else

[Alayne's Shadow.]

You know you've created the perfect post for Jon haters right?

And no, even as a Jon fan I don't think he would have done it better. Because he couldn't.

This. /thread.

[The Agency of Sansa Stark]

Jon is of far nobler birth, of course he would have faired better.

[Modelex]

1) Riverrun and the Trident are immensely defensible, as we see throughout the wo5k.

Edmure was captured and his forces scattered quite quickly at the opening stages of the war. It's the least defensible region in Westeros. Edmure defends the Ford only be having commanders guarding every possible crossing and being well prepared, not to mention knowing the terrain better than Tywin.

The number of soldiers Tywin later has at KL indicates that even despite this he did not suffer any real losses

2) What actually happens in the story is that Robb and co. defend the Riverlands remarkably well, so this point is irrelevant as well.

The Riverlands was not defended remarkably well. That place is burned to the ground pretty much and Robb defends nothing. The River Lords have to defend themselves. Edmure repels Tywin crossing back into his home territory and the peasants in his surrounding lands are sheltered. Robb liberating Riverrun does not mean he defended the Riverlands by any means. By the end of the war, the Riverlands might as well have been defended by ghosts for all the good it did

3) There is only 1 disloyal bannerman in the Riverlands, and he is not solely responsible for the Starks downfall.

No, he was just a minor annoyance right?

[WhiteOwl18]

This is just a thread made to show that if Jon were the one leading the armies circa AGOT, things would have been much better for the Stark family

1) No poisonous Tully influence

We all know what great contributions the Tullys made to Robb's cause. In that they screwed things up time and time again, releasing one of their most prized captives and withdrawing men from the Twins for example. If Jon were the one at war, he would not have to deal with this family at all, or the Riverlands. This would have made him more successful than Robb ever was. He could probably even get them on his side regardless for a common cause, but he would not be attached to them by any blood obligation

2) Jon would have supported Stannis

I have no doubt in my mind that Jon would not put a crown on his head. He would have bent the knee Stannis just like his father because he was Ned's truest son unlike Robb

3) Jon wouldn't trust Theon or Roose Bolton

Jon growing up as a bastard knows how to judge people's characters better than any of his trueborn siblings. He would know just how rotten and false Theon is and would keep him by his side instead of letting him free. I think he would have also gotten Balon on his side with a better envoy. He would have also never given Roose control of army as he knew Ned never trusted the man.

4) Jon would have traded Jaime

Unlike his brother, Jon wouldn't have abandoned his sisters in King's Landing. He would have traded them for Jaime and gotten them safely home.

5) Jon would have kept his oaths

Jon, like Ned, only besmirches his honor in times of need or when he needs to do so to save a family member. He would have kept any marriage arrangements and not be incredibly irresponsible and throw them away for some random fling

6) Equal education to Robb

We know from various recollections in Jon's PoV, that Ned taught Jon alongside Robb some lessons in how to rule. So Jon lacking education since he was a bastard would not be a problem at all. In fact, I would say from his time as LC he took the lessons to heart more than any of the Stark kids. He would have proven just as able (or perhaps more capable) as a military commander. And he would not have Cat around to give him some "smart" ideas

So all in all, I think that if Ned got Jon legitimized as a Stark before the events of the series, and he was the one in charge, he would have done quite well for the Starks.

Only person who would have stood in the way of that is the old bat unfortanately.

1- In which way was Tully influence poisonous?

2- I'm not so sure about that.

3- I agree with that one.

4- Agreed.

5- And yet we see him breaking his oath...

6- So? How does that indicate that he would have done better?

I love Jon, but I don't think we can say for sure he would have done better. Now, sure. Back then, not so sure.

[TheMysteriousOne]

<snip>

The vast majority of this post are shaky, hypothetical assertions based on flimsy evidence and on Jon's character circa ADWD. A lot of the characteristics you ascribe to Jon are ones that he has developed over time, throughout the books. Keep in mind that a lot of Jon's characteristics came as a result of observing what happened to Robb and the Northern cause. Jon in AGOT would not have done better than Robb, to be honest, he would've done way worse.

In addition, the Tullys would be unavoidable no matter what, due to the fact that Ned's children and trueborn heir are of Tully stock. If Jon decided to alienate the Tullys from the Northern movement, he would (obviously) cause internecine conflict within House Stark, and might even cause the Riverlands to be neutral or even against the North.

The whole point of Robb's rebellion was secession away from the Seven Kingdoms. Jon declaring Stannis king and bending the knee would be the exact opposite of what the North wanted.

ETA: I'm definitely not a fan of Robb, and I like Jon, but he would not have done better than Robb during that time. If it was Jon as of ADWD, he would've been far more successful than Robb.

[Bryden Tully]

So Jon fails at leadership at the NW and it's everyone elses fault, yet when Robb dies it's solely his fault

[Lord Martin]

Am I the only one who noticed the inconsistency in points 1 and 4? The Tullys were idiots for releasing Jaime but Jon would have done a better job by... releasing Jaime?

But to go point by point:

1. Jon still would have had to take RiverRun and deal with the Tullys. Once he reached the Twins he would have faced the same problem Robb did, march on KL and fight Tywin along the way (who had better numbers and is Tywin "fookin'" Lannister!), march on RiverRun and take on Jaime or split the armies like Robb did. I don't see how Jon can avoid the Tullys.

2. When would Jon have supported Stannis? Before Ned was killed? If so, what makes you think Jon would be willing to sign Ned's death warrant when Robb wouldn't do so? After Ned was killed? So put his sisters in mortal danger and what, wait for Stannis to march on KL and then join him? Where does he wait in the meantime? Certainly Lord Frey wouldn't play host for a year. Head back north and lose all the momentum? Try to oust Tywin from Harrenhal and wait there? Or liberate RiverRun and wait there? Really RiverRun is the only option.

3. Agreed on the Theon front, not so sure about Roose Bolton. Bolton was a shrewd choice and really wasn't Robb's biggest blunder or even a blunder at all. Who knows what result the Greatjon or Robett Glover would have achieved.... the whole foot could have been slaughtered. Plus, Roose was loyal at this point, he doesn't turn until Blackwater and Robb's wedding to Jeyne Westerling.

4. Maybe... of course that assumes that Whispering Woods still happened.... but if we take the Tullys out the equation then there is no Blackfish and with no Blackfish, no Whispering Woods.

5. Probably true... unless the whole love potion theory is actually true. But again, would Jon have even been in the West if he had the command?

6. Equal education sure, but not equal status or respect. Robb had a hard enough time winning the loyalties of his men, Jon's task would be all the harder as a bastard.

[The Snark of Winterfell]

OP

Agree with a lot of you points, still don't know who would have been better they would have been so different. And Robb was a natural at battlefield strategy, don't know if Jon would have done as well and he has made several mistakes at the Wall and he is frozen and stabbed full of holes right now.

I'm assuming that the scenario is that Robb died, Jon is legitimized before the events of Kings Landing.

1) Tullys - suppose he has no inclination to trust or got to the Tully's. Cuts both ways, they did give him a lot of support Tullys even though Edmure was a jackass.

2) Not positive if he would have supported Stannis either, but given the way the get along I can go with it.

3) Agree with not trusting Roose Bolton.

4) I think he would have traded the girls for Jamie, but I don't think he would have had Jamie. By your point 1, would he have went to Riverrun, would he have the Blackfish, no idea. Would he split forces or would he get his butt kicked by Jamie.

5) I def don't think he would break a marriage contract. We had the benefit of a POV but he is an honorable guy and was afraid of women before Ygritte. I don't think the Westerling thing would have happened. I know he broke his NW vows, but he was in a rock and a hard place, Q'horin told him to do whatever it took. Ygritte furthered this by lying and he had to make it true, regardless his whole excursion with the Wildlings was rock and a hardplace compounded over several times. I don't think he would break the marriage vow.

6) Sure

It's hard to say who would have done better. Robb's breaking the marriage vows was his undoing but Jon may have been undone before.

[Lord Martin]

I would have to agree with the point about the Riverlands being the most difficult to defend... keep in mind the Crownlands are not a real kingdom, they were part of the Kingdom of the Riverlands at various points in time including at the time of the Conquest.

From the West there are no natural defenses, the Golden Tooth is a western fortress, so the Riverlands are completely exposed there. The same is true about the Bloody Gate to the East and Moat Cailin to the North. Those key defensive positions protect the West, Vale and North from attacks from the Riverlands, but do nothing in the opposite direction. In the South the Blackwater separates it from the Reach and there appear to be several crossing options there as well.

The Reach has the shield islands to protect from sea attacks whereas the Riverlands are exposed in the northwest until you reach Seaguard. The Reach also has mountains on its borders with Dorne and the West. Unlike the Riverlands, the Reach controls major fortifications along those choke points, i.e. Goldengrove and Old Oaks.

So I agree that the Riverlands are the most difficult to defend of all the Kingdoms.

[l2 0 5 5]

Jon got stabbed in the back by people who were closer to him than Roose was with Robb.

I think Robb would've benefited greatly with Jon by his side, but to say that Jon would have done better being the leader is a toss up.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On one hand we have Jon who always tried his best to help people and he got stabbed because of that and because he couldn't communicate with the others. However that did stopped him from trying to do his best. On the other hand we have Robb who killed people because he was too stupid to think with his head and he didn't care. So yes I believe that Jon is far better than Robb.

[LordQorgyle]

Robb is a much better leader than Jon, all his man love him, Jon is the opposite

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Robb is a much better leader than Jon, all his man love him, Jon is the opposite

The Boltons and the Karstarks, I don't even mention the Freys, disagree with this statement.

[l2 0 5 5]

They both have people from their respective sides that didn't agree with them. Robb had the Boltons, Karstarks, and Freys. Jon had a lot of people pissed about allowing Wildlings past the Wall.

[Northernmonkey]

This is all pointless until we can define a scenario in which this takes place. Is this if Jon is a legitimised bastard? If so, when and how did this happen? We can't really discuss the way Jon deals with the Tullys, Stannis and Jaime unless we set the parameters.

[Fat Trell]

This is just a thread made to show that if Jon were the one leading the armies circa AGOT, things would have been much better for the Stark family

1) No poisonous Tully influence

We all know what great contributions the Tullys made to Robb's cause. In that they screwed things up time and time again, releasing one of their most prized captives and withdrawing men from the Twins for example. If Jon were the one at war, he would not have to deal with this family at all, or the Riverlands. This would have made him more successful than Robb ever was. He could probably even get them on his side regardless for a common cause, but he would not be attached to them by any blood obligation

2) Jon would have supported Stannis

I have no doubt in my mind that Jon would not put a crown on his head. He would have bent the knee Stannis just like his father because he was Ned's truest son unlike Robb

3) Jon wouldn't trust Theon or Roose Bolton

Jon growing up as a bastard knows how to judge people's characters better than any of his trueborn siblings. He would know just how rotten and false Theon is and would keep him by his side instead of letting him free. I think he would have also gotten Balon on his side with a better envoy. He would have also never given Roose control of army as he knew Ned never trusted the man.

4) Jon would have traded Jaime

Unlike his brother, Jon wouldn't have abandoned his sisters in King's Landing. He would have traded them for Jaime and gotten them safely home.

5) Jon would have kept his oaths

Jon, like Ned, only besmirches his honor in times of need or when he needs to do so to save a family member. He would have kept any marriage arrangements and not be incredibly irresponsible and throw them away for some random fling

6) Equal education to Robb

We know from various recollections in Jon's PoV, that Ned taught Jon alongside Robb some lessons in how to rule. So Jon lacking education since he was a bastard would not be a problem at all. In fact, I would say from his time as LC he took the lessons to heart more than any of the Stark kids. He would have proven just as able (or perhaps more capable) as a military commander. And he would not have Cat around to give him some "smart" ideas

So all in all, I think that if Ned got Jon legitimized as a Stark before the events of the series, and he was the one in charge, he would have done quite well for the Starks.

Only person who would have stood in the way of that is the old bat unfortunately

1. Without Tully support(Which he would not have, being basically a usurper of Hoster's grandchildren), the march south to rescue Ned would have been unfeasible. Without connections in the Riverlands and the Vale, no one would have marched with Jon. Even if we accept that for some reason Jon marches into hostile territory with all his strength with no goal beside KL, he would even more hopelessly outnumbered than Robb, with no allies to bolster his numbers or give him respite or resupply. This statement is built upon a false premise.

The arrogant 14 year old we meet in aGoT(who would be even more arrogant given he's no longer a bastard, presumably hasn't been one for quire a while, and has gone through none of the humbling he experiences he faced at the Wall) would turn down a crown if faced with the exact scenario Robb did? I find that hard to believe. Even if he did though, why would his bannermen support Stannis? Renly was a more popular choice at the time, not to mention more logical. Stannis commands all of 5,000 men, Jon's men are already hopelessly outnumbered with no logistical allies, why would they agree to joining with the one party who offers the least amount of support in both of those facets?

Maybe, but then who does he send to lead his foot? Would he have even thought of splitting his forces to deceive Tywin? Balon couldn't have cared less about Theon. By the time Theon arrived, Balon had already mustered his forces. He didn't want to ally with the North, he wanted to conquer the North. Did you not get the whole grudge against Ned Stark thing? It wasn't a matter of envoys and diplomacy. Balon simply didn't care about what the Stark's could offer as allies.

So Jon would have traded one of the realms best fighters for a girl? Why would his bannermen(who are totally surrounded by enemies, hopelessly outnumbered, thousands of miles from home, with absolutely no allies whatsoever, are presumably living off the land[read, not well]) be ok with this?

Maybe. Doubtful Jon would have ever been engaged to a Frey or in the Westerlands tho.

Really? Jon took Ned's lessons to heart more than any of his other children? What about the whole "keep good men around you" one? Or the "dine with your men, get to know them" thing? Jon was assassinated by the men he worked the most closely with. You can argue Marsh and his supporters were wrong to try to off Jon but a good portion of the blame for their actions falls on Jon's inability to convince the Watch to come around to his thinking or to inspire loyalty in the old guard.

[Minsc]

Robb at least lasts around three books as King of the North (and that is while fighting a formidable foe like Tywin), while Jon only survives two books as Lord Commander before his top lieutenants get tried of his fail and stab him in the back. And Jon had around three books to develop further before being placed in a position of high command compared to Robb's one.

Thus, if anything Jon is more of a failure then Robb is at leadership. In how at least Robb has strategic genius to him while Jon's battle plans are running into suicide missions because it suits his emotions with oaths be damned.

Edit: Also about the infamous Roose quote by Jon, interesting how IIRC that only comes after the RW you know when Jon should be quite aware of Roose's betrayal of Robb.

Also supporting Stannis doesn't benefit the North at all during the time of AGOT-ASOS, moreover he still hadn't declared himself by the time Robb is made king. But, I agree Jon wouldn't be named king in how he wouldn't be able to win over any of his bannermen with his shoddy leadership.

[Edd Tollett's One Vote]

This is just a thread made to show that if Jon were the one leading the armies circa AGOT, things would have been much better for the Stark family

1) No poisonous Tully influence

We all know what great contributions the Tullys made to Robb's cause. In that they screwed things up time and time again, releasing one of their most prized captives and withdrawing men from the Twins for example. If Jon were the one at war, he would not have to deal with this family at all, or the Riverlands. This would have made him more successful than Robb ever was. He could probably even get them on his side regardless for a common cause, but he would not be attached to them by any blood obligation

2) Jon would have supported Stannis

I have no doubt in my mind that Jon would not put a crown on his head. He would have bent the knee Stannis just like his father because he was Ned's truest son unlike Robb

3) Jon wouldn't trust Theon or Roose Bolton

Jon growing up as a bastard knows how to judge people's characters better than any of his trueborn siblings. He would know just how rotten and false Theon is and would keep him by his side instead of letting him free. I think he would have also gotten Balon on his side with a better envoy. He would have also never given Roose control of army as he knew Ned never trusted the man.

4) Jon would have traded Jaime

Unlike his brother, Jon wouldn't have abandoned his sisters in King's Landing. He would have traded them for Jaime and gotten them safely home.

5) Jon would have kept his oaths

Jon, like Ned, only besmirches his honor in times of need or when he needs to do so to save a family member. He would have kept any marriage arrangements and not be incredibly irresponsible and throw them away for some random fling

6) Equal education to Robb

We know from various recollections in Jon's PoV, that Ned taught Jon alongside Robb some lessons in how to rule. So Jon lacking education since he was a bastard would not be a problem at all. In fact, I would say from his time as LC he took the lessons to heart more than any of the Stark kids. He would have proven just as able (or perhaps more capable) as a military commander. And he would not have Cat around to give him some "smart" ideas

So all in all, I think that if Ned got Jon legitimized as a Stark before the events of the series, and he was the one in charge, he would have done quite well for the Starks.

Only person who would have stood in the way of that is the old bat unfortanately

Okay, first let me say that I do like Jon and think he's a good leader and doing a good job as LC of the NW (though yes his men do stab him so he's obviously not a perfect one lol), but:

Assuming that this is in a scenario where Jon has been legitimized and supported by all the North,

1 - The Tullys would not stand behind him. His legitimacy would be an insult to Cat and therefore to the Tully's honour. Whether the Tullys were ultimately helpful or not is irrelevant (though I will say that I definitely don't think their influence was 'poisonous'), because they were necessary at the start for Robb (Jon in this scenario) to march towards KL. If it was Jon trying to march his men through, he would likely have been met with open hostility, since the Tully's wouldn't have turned against the Crown.

So, basically, I think that Jon wouldn't have been able to even start the a war because he couldn't have had enough support. Jon is not a master negotiator anymore than Robb. People would not have just flocked to him. As for the others:

2 - Maybe but then the Northerners dreams of Independence would be dead. I also don't think that the Jon at the start of aSoIaF would've bent the knee.

3 - Yeah. Jon probably wouldn't have released Theon (he might've had to give Bolton some freedom whether he trusted him or not), which would've saved Winterfell and might mean that he wouldn't even get in the position of sleeping with Jeyne, and hence no RW..... but I think Jon would've messed up in other ways, and those might've lead to his downfall in ways different to Robb's mistakes lead to his. (Jon for example, isn't good at explaining his decisions to his men and getting the support of his followers)

4 - This would've only angered the Karstarks and lead to some other kind of betrayal (see: Jon making his own mistakes)

5 - Yes but as I said above, because he might not have had reason to break them as much as Robb did. Had he slept with Jeyne out of grief he might've married her too. After all, the one thing Jon doesn't want to do is father a bastard.

6 - Yes. And it's likely they would've both equally messed up. They were young boys, and Tywin (the real mastermind behind the RW IMO) would have probably managed to beat both of them, if not with armies then at the game itself.