Jon would have done much better than Robb

[HexMachina]

I never said that Walder was justified to kill all of them. I have said that he exaggerated and even if he wanted to kill Robb he could had used other means like poison. However in this case I believe that revenge is the only answer for what Robb had done, he couldn't correct it and no one would had really accepted his pitiful so called amends.

Robbs' ammends may have been pitiful to you, but as I have pointed out, it would have left the Freys in the same position they were originally in - marriage to a Lord Paramount. Only.instead of the North, its the Riverlands. And if that wasn't enough, Robb would likely have arranged other marriages, given lands, gold etc. There was no need to kill Robb and take revenge, because revenge is never the only answer.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Robbs' ammends may have been pitiful to you, but as I have pointed out, it would have left the Freys in the same position they were originally in - marriage to a Lord Paramount. Only.instead of the North, its the Riverlands. And if that wasn't enough, Robb would likely have arranged other marriages, given lands, gold etc. There was no need to kill Robb and take revenge, because revenge is never the only answer.

Wrong. Unless Edmure's name was Robb it wasn't the same. The Starks aren't the same with Tullys. They were promised Robb and they have helped Robb they have died for Robb everything had to do with Robb. How about all those Frey men who died for Robb's cause, how about them and their deaths? How about Robb's betrayal?

[HexMachina]

Wrong. Unless Edmure's name was Robb it wasn't the same. The Starks aren't the same with Tullys. They were promised Robb and they have helped Robb they have died for Robb everything had to do with Robb. How about all those Frey men who died for Robb's cause, how about them and their deaths? How about Robb's betrayal?

It leaves them in an equivalent position, is what I meant. Edmure is Lord Paramount. Robb was heir to Lord Paramount when he was betrothed. The offer was not a bad deal at all, and could probably have been sweetened if Walder so desired.

Yes, the Freys died for Robb. That is very admirable, and I have already said thag I was sympathetic to them when Robb broke his promise to them. That sympathy vanished with the Red Wedding.

Taking revenge does not bring the dead back to life, nor does it truly help the living. A wiser and more reasonable man would see this, and take the offer to marry Edmure, ask for lands, gold and.other marriages, and an apology from Robb. But Walder was not wise or reasonable.

Yes, Robb betrayed them by breaking his promise, I know that. But as I have pointed out, the answer did not need to be revenge, because revenge is a double-edged sword which causes more problems than it solves. Revenge wont help the dead, but reconciliation would have been beneficial to the living on both sides

ETA; I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like Robb too.

ETA again; huh, why does my.quote thing change your board name to Jon? Weird.

[The Wolves]

It's not just the betrothal, Frey men died for Robb. How he could ever correct that?

Why do you keep pointing this out?

Robb never asked the Freys to get involved all they had to do was open the feckin gate he never asked them to fight and die for him they chose to knowing the consequences.

The Freys didn't have to throw in with Robb they wanted to, that is not Robb's fault at all.

[Minsc]

Sure. But Jon endangered only himself, not thousands of people.

So all the members of the NW that Jon doomed by sending them into a suicide mission at Hardhome because he likes to play hero don't count? Or the fact of how his intelligent decision to provoke the Boltons into attacking the NW because again he likes playing hero don't count? The only difference is that Jon's men kill him before his stupid actions can get them all killed.

[The Wolves]

So all the members of the NW that Jon doomed by sending them into a suicide mission at Hardhome because he likes to play hero don't count? Or the fact of how his intelligent decision to provoke the Boltons into attacking the NW because again he likes playing hero don't count? The only difference is that Jon's men kill him before his stupid actions can get them all killed.

Well them killing Jon could potentially get them all killed anyways with the Wildlings on the other side of the wall outnumbering them and Jon their only link to the NW which once dead will literally cause "all hell to break lose"

[Erkan12]

Jon would've died in the first battle against Jaime or Tywin.

[Ingelheim]

So all the members of the NW that Jon doomed by sending them into a suicide mission at Hardhome because he likes to play hero don't count? Or the fact of how his intelligent decision to provoke the Boltons into attacking the NW because again he likes playing hero don't count? The only difference is that Jon's men kill him before his stupid actions can get them all killed.

What? Saving the people that lived in Hardhome is kind of crucial, you know.

You can't let them die. Not just because it's wrong, but because you can't face thousands of wights more.

[Minsc]

What? Saving the people that lived in Hardhome is kind of crucial, you know.

You can't let them die. Not just because it's wrong, but because you can't face thousands of wights more.

No it isn't, that is just an excuse that Jon uses once to justify his foolish decision

Especially, seeing Jon's plan just creates more wrights while weakening the Watch

[intheswamp]

Obviously, we can never truly know who would have done better.

I'm guessing Jon would have been better at the politics. Robb seems to always send Cat to do his politicking for him. In fact, things tend to go badly when Robb tries his hands at it. Jon didn't trust/like Theon. He also knew that Ned didn't trust Roose. I'm not sold that Jon would have accepted the crown if it had been offered. We see how well he handles Stannis. Jon always came across as a fairly wise character. In fact, in the very first chapter of the series, we see from Bran's perspective Jon one-upping Robb in this regard: when they find the direwolves and argue over whether they should live or die, Robb commands that they live without giving any actual reason whereas Jon, understanding the type of man Eddard is, rationally and calmly convinces him. Benjen also points out Jon's gift for picking up on the character of others.

Whether or not Jon could do as well as Robb as a field commander is hard to guess. Jon hasn't had much oppurtunity.

[Arya Targaryen]

No it isn't, that is just an excuse that Jon uses once to justify his foolish decision

Especially, seeing Jon's plan just creates more wrights while weakening the Watch

If the wildlings like Tormund and co. are willing to join Jon to go to Hardhome, just after they arrived safely to the southern side of the Wall, it tells me the rescue plan actually had a very good chance of succeeding. Meaning less wight, more men at the Wall, you know.

And FYI: Bowen stabbed Jon because Stannis lost, and he didn't want the Watch to end up on the losing side. But it's not like Jon had much chance to side with the Boltons against Stannis, when Stannis was at the Wall and outnumbered him 5:1. Especially just after he saved the Watch's collective ass. With Stannis dead, the Boltons win, and Jon still doesn't consider handing over the hostages Ramsey requires. Especially as he doesn't have them all (and they are protected by guest right anyway.) It's not the Hardhome mission, the letting the wildling through or the Arya mission, not even the let's go meet Ramsey. It's the fact that Stannis died, leaving the Watch on the loser's side. That's the reason Bowen killed Jon.

[Minsc]

If the wildlings like Tormund and co. are willing to join Jon to go to Hardhome, just after they arrived safely to the southern side of the Wall, it tells me the rescue plan actually had a very good chance of succeeding. Meaning less wight, more men at the Wall, you know.

We have already seen Jon's plan fail, I see no reason to believing do it twice will be better

[Game Of Thrones]

Sure. But Jon endangered only himself, not thousands of people.

I guess the NW and the wildlings don't count as people?

[Minsc]

Obviously, we can never truly know who would have done better.

I'm guessing Jon would have been better at the politics. Robb seems to always send Cat to do his politicking for him. In fact, things tend to go badly when Robb tries his hands at it. Jon didn't trust/like Theon. He also knew that Ned didn't trust Roose. I'm not sold that Jon would have accepted the crown if it had been offered. We see how well he handles Stannis. Jon always came across as a fairly wise character. In fact, in the very first chapter of the series, we see from Bran's perspective Jon one-upping Robb in this regard: when they find the direwolves and argue over whether they should live or die, Robb commands that they live without giving any actual reason whereas Jon, understanding the type of man Eddard is, rationally and calmly convinces him. Benjen also points out Jon's gift for picking up on the character of others.

Jon only mentions Ned's distrust of Roose after the RW thus has remarkable hindsight.

Jon couldn't even pick up on his advantages he had over his fellow recruits or how being appointed Jeroh's steward was a compliment

[Game Of Thrones]

I'd hardly call Ser Brynden Tully a poisonous influence.

Nor Edmure for that matter.

This is actually another Cat hate thread isn't it?

Nope. A Robb Stark hate thread, led by JQC.

[Game Of Thrones]

JQC: IF A REBEL KING BREAKS AN OATH TO YOU, YOU STOP SUPPORTING THAT REBEL KING. YOU DO NOT KILL HIM, HIS FAMILY, HIS BANNERMEN, AND HIS SOLDIERS IN A WEDDING THAT YOU'RE HOSTING.

Why can't you see this?

[Starkfaithful85]

i will say that if jon was able to capture Jaime he could have simply said peace out and go back north with his hostage...robb couldnt have done this bc of his bloodties

having said that you are judging jon by his DwD attitude and not his initial GoT or CoK mindset...completely different people

[Minsc]

Definitely Robbs biggest mistake was taking up a crown, even while his father had openly supported Stannis.

No, Ned openly declared for Joffrey on the stairs of Baelor's sept while he never declared for Stannis

[Minsc]

Errm so sending a letter to Dragonstone, telling Renly and LF both that he planned to five the crown to Stannis and renouncing Jofferys claim in the throne room for all to see was not declaring any intent?

Besides anyone could tell Neds 'confession' was false. Why should he support a man he had already renounced.

Ned supported Stannis, and he makes that clear. Stannis was the lawfull king. In Neds eyes thats was reason enough.

Robbs claim was moot anyway. Ned would never let his son take up a crown.

A letter that was intercepted, he never told Renly, and LF wasn't telling anyone

Thus, Robb had no reason to believe his father supported Stannis

[Game Of Thrones]

Jon didn't trust/like Theon.

Any reasonably smart reaver could've taken WF. All not sending Theon would've accomplished is killing Theon and whoever went to the Iron Islands.

He also knew that Ned didn't trust Roose.

Hindsight.

I'm not sold that Jon would have accepted the crown if it had been offered.

Peer pressure.

We see how well he handles Stannis. Jon always came across as a fairly wise character. In fact, in the very first chapter of the series, we see from Bran's perspective Jon one-upping Robb in this regard: when they find the direwolves and argue over whether they should live or die, Robb commands that they live without giving any actual reason whereas Jon, understanding the type of man Eddard is, rationally and calmly convinces him. Benjen also points out Jon's gift for picking up on the character of others.

Are we both talking about Jon Snow? The guy who decided to go and fight the Boltons by himself?

Whether or not Jon could do as well as Robb as a field commander is hard to guess. Jon hasn't had much oppurtunity.

True.