What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

[Nagini's Neville]

5 minutes ago, Tour De Force said:

Jon had a choice.  He could claim being gay.  The wildlings would buy that because a man who admits to being gay can't be lying (in their minds).

lol are you joking? I don't remember that being gay was ever a topic, that could be discussed openly- anywhere. Maybe Jon doesn't even know gay ppl exist... 

But even if he did claim to be gay, his possibility to prove his loyalty would have been gone and then who knows if they were to offer another one.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

15 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

I agree with everything you said except the part about Jeyne, I think he too would have been caught in the same situation, after all, he did go native with Ygritte, and I think that similarality in their arcs was an intentional one by George.

 

Yeah he might've. His situation with Ygritte was a little different though. His life & his 'mission' kinda depended on keeping up the appearance of being 'with' Ygritte. Not to say he didn't have or develop feelings for her. He did try to keep her at bay though. If he did that with Jeyne or most any woman other than a wildling they wouldn't double down on their pursuit of him like Ygritte did. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

49 minutes ago, Tour De Force said:

Jon had a choice.  He could claim being gay.  The wildlings would buy that because a man who admits to being gay can't be lying (in their minds).

Sure & then what? The wildlings would have either killed him on the spot because now there is no Ygritte to vouch for him & say they are together OR the situation would have been forced upon him with a man instead of Ygritte. Which would be bad for Jon, to say the least, considering he isn't gay.

This is just preposterous. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

I don't think this would change, Catelyn wanted someone more mature at KL, so she would still go with Rodrik.

Could certainly be. Just a suggestion where things may have changed. Jon could have said him going would have been less obvious if they were seen, since he could tell he desperately wanted to be with his father.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jon would probably go with Robb, but I could see him being the "Stark at winterfell" but not very likely

Not the Stark of Winterfell. That would be Bran. But he could advise and protect/care for Bran.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

about Theon, even Cat could not stoped him from sending Theon, so I do not belive Jon could. The Westerling scenario I agree.

It is a strong point in Jon's POV that never liked or trusted Theon. Jon would have done everything he could from preventing Robb to allow Theon to do anything, possibly even shutting down the entire 'North-Iron Islands alliance' idea - which was crap from the start, as Balon would have never gone along with that, anyway.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jon wanted, sure, but Benjen and Ned were oposed to the idea, and they were his guardian, without Eddard permission Jon would stay.

It was Ned's call to decide to send Jon to the Wall, not Cat's. She only wanted him gone from Winterfell. Luwin told them Jon wanted to take the black, and then Ned decided that's what the boy would do. We don't know how their talk about that went, hopefully George is going to revisit that when Jon learns he isn't Ned's son.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Cat was being really unreasonable with the issue. Jon barely interacted with her, Winterfell is a big castle and she could ignore him like she did with all her obligations later on, Jon was Robb's best friend and Robb was the acting lord that need all the support and she was removing it. without giving him any support herself, Bran was still in coma and she wouldn't even let Jon stay close to him.

Robb wasn't the acting lord. Cat was the regent Ned left behind to govern Winterfell and the North in his name. Robb was the future of the North, not the present. And Cat did not want Jon in her castle - a reasonable position considering how Ned was rubbing his infidelity in her face with bringing his bastard with him in the first place.

2 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

At the very least he could stop Robb for putting Roose in command.

Not likely. At this point this was the smarter idea. Robb wanted to name the Greatjon which would have been much worse. Roose wouldn't have betrayed Robb no matter what - he is no time bomb that has to go off. He betrays and kills Robb because Robb fucked things up himself and Roose reached a point where getting rid of the mad wolf was better for him than to stick to him. Had Robb not made as many mistakes as he did Roose may have never betrayed him.

1 hour ago, DarkLord said:

I don't think this is true at all. Because the bastard point of view we get is Jon, who spent his whole life being put down for it by Catelyn, I think the readers have a harsher opinion of it then the world itself implies.  Stannis names a bastard in charge of Dragonstone when he leaves ( Rolland Storm ) and we have seen them sit on the small council. We have examples of them being well liked and respected rather consistently. Even in the north as far back as the king who knelt there was his bastard brother giving him his council. Notable for the plan of sneaking in the darkness and killing the dragons.

It is not just the bastard thing - which is significant as well, though, Stannis is no comparison there, being down to a couple of thousands supporters, and very few highborn lords - it is also the fact that Jon is still a boy in his minority. No self-respecting lord would allow an underage bastard to command him, especially not proud Northmen who argue about who rides behind whom in the column.

King Robb - which he would have hopefully never become if Jon had been with him - could have eventually named Jon to such a position, but even then this wouldn't have been a popular decision.

People later only see Jon as a person of importance/influence because all the real Starks are dead. He is the only one left.

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I kinda agree with that, I always had the impression, that Jon only slept with Ygritte, because he really didn't have a choice. At least we can't say for sure, what he would have done, if he had a choice, because he really didn't have one.

So maybe he wouldn't have slept with Jeyne either. 

To be sure, Robb only slept with Robb because he was very vulnerable because he just learned that his two brothers were supposedly dead - something that would have likely never happened had Jon been either at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon or at Robb's side (because he would not have allowed Theon to go to his father).

So the Westerling thing would likely never come up in such a scenario.

Jon would likely do everything he could to prevent Robb from getting to close to Jeyne if he were with him in this scenario, but I'm not sure what he would advise him to do after Robb had deflowered Jeyne. Being a bastard himself he likely does not want Robb to do what Ned apparently did to Jon's mother.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

To be sure, Robb only slept with Robb because he was very vulnerable

If only Robb only ever had slept with Robb   no problems would have followed- sorry couldn't resist- I'm a child, don't mind me lol

[Nagini's Neville]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

To be sure, Robb only slept with Robb because he was very vulnerable because he just learned that his two brothers were supposedly dead - something that would have likely never happened had Jon been either at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon or at Robb's side (because he would not have allowed Theon to go to his father).

So the Westerling thing would likely never come up in such a scenario.

Jon would likely do everything he could to prevent Robb from getting to close to Jeyne if he were with him in this scenario, but I'm not sure what he would advise him to do after Robb had deflowered Jeyne. Being a bastard himself he likely does not want Robb to do what Ned apparently did to Jon's mother.

I understand and I actually think it makes Robb more human and relatable. And I also don't think Jon would have advised Robb against marrying Jeyne.

[DarkLord]

4 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I kinda agree with that, I always had the impression, that Jon only slept with Ygritte, because he really didn't have a choice. At least we can't say for sure, what he would have done, if he had a choice, because he really didn't have one.

So maybe he wouldn't have slept with Jeyne either.  

He didn't exactly have a choice but in that I always saw Ygritte as Jon's khal drogo. Neither relationship was exactly equal but both learned and by the end loved their partner (as much a a teenager in their respective situations could love them). There is a parallel with honor though. Honor made Robb marry well honor made Jon leave Ygritte.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not just the bastard thing - which is significant as well, though, Stannis is no comparison there, being down to a couple of thousands supporters, and very few highborn lords - it is also the fact that Jon is still a boy in his minority. No self-respecting lord would allow an underage bastard to command him, especially not proud Northmen who argue about who rides behind whom in the column.

King Robb - which he would have hopefully never become if Jon had been with him - could have eventually named Jon to such a position, but even then this wouldn't have been a popular decision.

People later only see Jon as a person of importance/influence because all the real Starks are dead. He is the only one left.

I did mention his age being a problem but I'm not sure it's fair to say people see him as important because all the Starks are dead. Catelyn outright worries the north will view him as more of a Stark because he looks like one. She also claims the wolves are some sign (something the north seem to agree with) although she outright pretends there wasn't one for Jon even after Robb corrects her. She's paranoid, sure, but the rest of the North looking to him didn't come out of nowhere. Acknowledged bastards are members of that house.  Joy hill, for example, seems to be in a position to be matched of by the head of House Lannister. I think his leading role is because he is the only one near by (They all know Sansa is alive) and it's worth remembering this is even when he has taken night's watch vows. If he had a leading role in anything else I just don't see much resistance unless he turns out to be terrible at it... Book one Jon would have probably been terrible at it.

Robb would still be King. I'm not sure Jon would have been able to stop it even if he was there. That was the most powerful lords in the north saying "no more iron throne". I think he would argue against the iron islands idea, be for trading Jamiee to get his sisters back, and probably end up as one of Robb's guards more then anything else though. His voice in stopping Robb going back on his word to the fray's would be big but I'm not sure that stopped them losing. It just massively speeds everything up.

As a "what if" I'd not expect much else to change. The Jon at the start of the books would have been useless in the war of the five kings.

[frenin]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not likely. At this point this was the smarter idea. Robb wanted to name the Greatjon which would have been much worse. Roose wouldn't have betrayed Robb no matter what - he is no time bomb that has to go off. He betrays and kills Robb because Robb fucked things up himself and Roose reached a point where getting rid of the mad wolf was better for him than to stick to him. Had Robb not made as many mistakes as he did Roose may have never betrayed him.

Roose was keeping a foot on each camp and  also getting rid  of noble rivals  from the beginning.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

Roose was keeping a foot on each camp and  also getting rid  of noble rivals  from the beginning.

Getting rid of noble rivals is not the same as betraying Robb Stark. The text makes it crystal clear when Roose finally decides to turn on Robb (after his meal with Jaime) before that all of this is entirely theoretical. And the moment he started to seriously consider treason is after Robb foolishly marries Jeyne Westerling, losing the Freys, and Stannis loses on the Blackwater. The moment where you see that Roose might get rid of Robb is when he says that Robb is not very likely to bend the knee to the Lannisters and Tyrells. He, Roose, is going to do that, so if Robb cannot do it, he has to go.

1 hour ago, DarkLord said:

I did mention his age being a problem but I'm not sure it's fair to say people see him as important because all the Starks are dead.

If there were still Starks at Winterfell, nobody would take a second glance at a Snow. Neither would Alys Karstark if she wouldn't be in trouble. She doesn't turn to Jon because she has the hots for the half-brother of the guy who killed her own father - she does that because she has more issues with the plans of her great-uncle and his sons than she has issues with the Starks.

1 hour ago, DarkLord said:

Catelyn outright worries the north will view him as more of a Stark because he looks like one.

Cat has some personal issues with Jon over the unpleasant ways Ned rubbed the bastard boy in her face. And she has legitimate concerns that this special favorite treatment of Jon's - remember the boy is without a mother, which makes him essentially baseborn by default; he is not Ned's confirmed son by a dalliance with some highborn lady - is going to fill his head with ideas and desires that might spiral out of control when he has children of his own. She acknowledges that Jon is likely not going to be a Daemon Blackfyre (although he got awfully close to stealing the birthright of Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya when he was pondering Stannis' offer, didn't he?), but that they cannot really vouch for Jon's children and grandchildren, can they? Legitimizing Jon would actually put him before Bran and Rickon in the succession if the succession of Addam and Alyn of Hull is an example - Joffrey Velaryon was Rhaenyra's last son by Laenor, but Marilda's boys were older, so after they were legitimized Addam Velaryon became the heir to Driftmark, and Joffrey ended up getting nothing (back then Jacaerys was still alive - he was Prince of Dragonstone, Joffrey next in line and should thus have gotten Driftmark as his father's heir).

If Robb actually legitimized Jon in his will then this might mean Jon is going to end up stealing Brandon and Rickon's birthright if he ever gets out of the NW because he will use a last will which was issued under false assumptions to his advantage.

That would be a very ugly thing to do, even more so considering that Jon Snow isn't even Eddard Stark's son, and has only the weakest of claims to Winterfell.

1 hour ago, DarkLord said:

Robb would still be King. I'm not sure Jon would have been able to stop it even if he was there. That was the most powerful lords in the north saying "no more iron throne". I think he would argue against the iron islands idea, be for trading Jamiee to get his sisters back, and probably end up as one of Robb's guards more then anything else though. His voice in stopping Robb going back on his word to the fray's would be big but I'm not sure that stopped them losing. It just massively speeds everything up.

Jon would have told Robb to take things slowly. To test the waters because making a major move. The king idea is not something that comes out of a great suppressed desire, it is a spur of the moment idea, something they do because they think they are in a deadlock and have to make a decision now. The decision there should have been to make no decision and to wait what the others do before making one of their own.

If Robb had wanted to be king the moment to do it would have been at the end of the war, when the Baratheons and central authorty was weakened by the civil war, not at the start of it when doing that was essentially nothing but drawing a huge target on Robb. There is a reason why Roose ponders to eventually declare himself King in the North as per Lady Dustin rather than doing that immediately after he returned back home.

1 hour ago, DarkLord said:

As a "what if" I'd not expect much else to change. The Jon at the start of the books would have been useless in the war of the five kings.

 

[frenin]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Getting rid of noble rivals is not the same as betraying Robb Stark. The text makes it crystal clear when Roose finally decides to turn on Robb (after his meal with Jaime) before that all of this is entirely theoretical. And the moment he started to seriously consider treason is after Robb foolishly marries Jeyne Westerling, losing the Freys, and Stannis loses on the Blackwater. The moment where you see that Roose might get rid of Robb is when he says that Robb is not very likely to bend the knee to the Lannisters and Tyrells. He, Roose, is going to do that, so if Robb cannot do it, he has to go.

2 hours ago, DarkLord said:

Well, that's not what a loyal bannermen does, getting rid of noble rivals does not benefit Robb in any way.

He does decide to betray Robb after the Blackwater, but he wasn't being a loyal bannerman from the beginning, especially if you consider that everything Ramsay was doing in the North, was on Roose behalf and blessing.

[Quoth the raven,]

Their plot follows the same arc trajectory.  They chose to break their oaths and the people they led took them down.  The personality differences is not that big of a deal.  It was the choices they made and made the same.  They followed their hearts instead of doing what they swore to do. 

[Lord Varys]

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well, that's not what a loyal bannermen does, getting rid of noble rivals does not benefit Robb in any way.

He does decide to betray Robb after the Blackwater, but he wasn't being a loyal bannerman from the beginning, especially if you consider that everything Ramsay was doing in the North, was on Roose behalf and blessing.

There are no loyal bannermen in this world who put their own interests behind those of their liege lords. Roose wants to advance, he can do that only over the corpses and losses of others - that's the way the Starks conquered the North, too, so they should have little issue with that.

And if Roose had gotten the job done Robb wouldn't have wept a tear if he had thrown some Hornwoods or Glovers or Manderlys under the bus in the process of that.

Not to mention that Roose only starts to really throw others under the bus after he starts to contemplate betrayal. That's when he decides to command them to march against Duskendale. All he may have done before that was to position his own men in safe positions and allow others to get themselves killed. But that's his prerogative as commander of the army.

[Many-Faced Votary]

A proper analysis of the two characters would perforce be in-depth and therefore time-consuming, so this post is just a very brief summary.

I think it is accurate to say that, broadly, Robb and Jon are both mirrors and foils. They complement each other: in their similar upbringing, family ties, sense of duty and honor, physical attributes, and leadership. Yet these similarities serve to highlight their differences, and vice versa. At the risk of oversimplifying it, there is a dichotomy in their practical actions in spite of the similitude of their thoughts and motivations.

As an external example, both are raised as Lord Eddard's sons, and he attempts to treat them both as well as society allows; but one being the firstborn son of a high lord and the other purportedly his bastard, there cannot be an equivalent childhood. Lady Catelyn cannot bring herself to mother or even tolerate Jon, which forces him to grow more quickly than Robb but with less idealism. Jon is raised to believe he is Robb's brother, but also that he stands to inherit nothing while Robb gains everything.

It is important to note that our first glimpse of the two is through Bran's eyes, by which we are immediately introduced to this concept:

Quote

[Jon] was of an age with Robb, but they did not look alike. Jon was slender where Robb was muscular, dark where Robb was fair, graceful and quick where his half brother was strong and fast.

Bran I, A Game of Thrones

Contrasting their leadership provides the clearest explication, as this is the attribute that best suggests they act as foils.

Both Robb and Jon are reasonably well-respected and appear fairly competent, but they are both given to emotional errors and tend to frame their thinking from their own perspectives. This is where their similarities lie, and the differences arise from them.

Jon seems to be strategically impeccable: allying with the Free Folk and accepting Stannis's aid and therefore claim both appear necessary for the greater conflict with the Others, and pursuing leads for fighting them is critical. Yet he is tactically abhorrent: he refuses to share his plans meaningfully; he does not talk to his men or assuage their fears; and he is too prone to breaking tradition without justification (in the eyes of his brothers). Robb is the opposite. His tactics are extremely sound: he won every battle, and -- although I do not think he would have ultimately proved victorious against Tywin, as many people seem to -- he could have made life very difficult for the Lannister regime and significantly altered the current geopolitics of Westeros. Yet he completely lacked strategic foresight in politics, often disregarding Cat's counsel for more impetuous behavior.

Robb won all his battles but lost the war; it seemed that he was unable to apprehend the big picture. Inversely, Jon seems to be losing most of his battles, but perhaps he will ultimately win the war, such as it is; nevertheless, he was mutinied against because he was overly obsessed with the big picture.

 

5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Which would be bad for Jon, to say the least, considering he isn't gay.

For what it's worth, I tend to absorb details when reading for a more thorough enjoyment of the narrative, and have picked up on relatively subtle bisexual vibes from Jon's chapters. The easiest example is simply how often and consistently he considers Satin's appearance (and profession prior to his having joined the Night's Watch) even when it seems inappropriate, especially since it is often juxtaposed with his more practical thoughts about other people and with other characters' introspection in preceding or succeeding chapters. Perhaps I'm reading too much into things, and any potential hints are entirely unintentional on Mr. Martin's part; but he does choose his words and scenes carefully, so I am inclined to believe it is simply extra information for attentive readers.

Granted, I'm certain Jon himself isn't aware that he is bisexual, if indeed this is the case -- particularly given that sexual orientation as we understand it today was not recognized as such until rather recently in our world, and definitely does not seem to be in his. Consequently, it has not affected the story thus far and probably will not do so at all, but a realistic and sensitive depiction of a diversity of characters is absolutely characteristic of Mr. Martin.

In any case, although I do like Ygritte well enough, it is incontrovertible that Jon was essentially sexually abused ("raped" is too harsh a word considering the circumstances and point-of-view bias), as he was not able to properly provide consent and was -- in his mind -- indirectly bound by duty not to refuse. Any hypothetical relationship with a male wilding would probably have been initiated in a similarly distasteful capacity, regardless of whether or not he would be inclined to bed men.

[frenin]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no loyal bannermen in this world who put their own interests behind those of their liege lords. Roose wants to advance, he can do that only over the corpses and losses of others. -that's the way the Starks conquered the North, too, so they should have little issue with that.

 

People who puts valuable assets in danger to advance themselves are not loyals, in anyway possible, Roose threw soldiers to their deaths because of his own agenda, that's disloyalty.

The Stark conquered the North, they didn't betray their allies and the correlation is ver tbf.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 And if Roose had gotten the job done Robb wouldn't have wept a tear if he had thrown some Hornwoods or Glovers or Manderlys under the bus in the process of that.

 

Again a very fallace correlation, not only because Robb would've been angry but the fact that Roose gets the job done don't mean he's not being disloyal.

 

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 Not to mention that Roose only starts to really throw others under the bus after he starts to contemplate betrayal. That's when he decides to command them to march against Duskendale. All he may have done before that was to position his own men in safe positions and allow others to get themselves killed. But that's his prerogative as commander of the army.

Yeah, his prerrogative, he also doesn't know what Ramsay was up to in Winterfell and in the North.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

38 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

what it's worth, I tend to absorb details when reading for a more thorough enjoyment of the narrative, and have picked up on relatively subtle bisexual vibes from Jon's chapters. The easiest example is simply how often and consistently he considers Satin's appearance (and profession prior to his having joined the Night's Watch) even when it seems inappropriate, especially since it is often juxtaposed with his more practical thoughts about other people and with other characters' introspection in preceding or succeeding chapters. Perhaps I'm reading too much into things, and any potential hints are entirely unintentional on Mr. Martin's part; but he does choose his words and scenes carefully, so I am inclined to believe it is simply extra information for attentive readers.

I see what you are saying - I've not reached the same conclusion but I understand why you do. 

 

41 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

In any case, although I do like Ygritte well enough, it is incontrovertible that Jon was essentially sexually abused ("raped" is too harsh a word considering the circumstances and point-of-view bias), as he was not able to properly provide consent and was -- in his mind -- indirectly bound by duty not to refuse. Any hypothetical relationship with a male wilding would probably have been initiated in a similarly distasteful capacity, regardless of whether or not he would be inclined to bed men

Right this was my point; that pretending to be gay would not put him in a better situation but would make the situation significantly worse for Jon if he was "pretending" to be gay & probably put him in a very similar situation if he was indeed gay or bisexual. 

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

People who puts valuable assets in danger to advance themselves are not loyals, in anyway possible, Roose threw soldiers to their deaths because of his own agenda, that's disloyalty.

This is a feudal world. A lord is first loyal to himself and his chunk of the world, not his liege or a king. And if he sees an opening he is going to use it.

Robb was far too naive to even understand how Roose was screwing him, never mind that he could have actually seen through it.

But again - that only happened after the Blackwater and the Westerling marriage, not before.

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Stark conquered the North, they didn't betray their allies and the correlation is ver tbf.

That's a ridiculous assumption. The Starks are not some collective or heroes. They are a long line of cruel and barbaric and conquering war lords who can afford to be generous in the present. Back in the day they did not win because they were the best people, but because they were the worst. You have to top skinning people alive to intimidate the Boltons - and the Starks must have done that somehow.

Sure you also have to keep promises and such if it is necessary, but the Starks wouldn't have conquered the North if they had not been willing to crush and submitting any opposition in their path.

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

Again a very fallace correlation, not only because Robb would've been angry but the fact that Roose gets the job done don't mean he's not being disloyal.

The point is that there is no indication that Robb would have had issues with Roose sacrificing lives to advance his own position in the North if he also got the job done Robb wanted him to do. Roose is loyal to his king (or should be) not the men under his command. He can use them as he sees fit.

If all of Roose's rivals mysteriously died under his command yet Robb would still conquer the castle he wanted or defeat the enemy he sent Roose out to defeat then this would be a glorious victory, not a betrayal of his king.

It is wrong to assume those lords see their peers as part of their own bloc. They do not. They are rivals, not friends, even if they are all subject to the same overlord or king.

[Eli Cross]

3 hours ago, frenin said:

The Stark conquered the North, they didn't betray their allies and the correlation is ver tbf.

We don't know if they betrayed people in the past but Robb surely betrayed the Freys.  Jon Stark Snow betrayed the night's watch.  If the theory is true that Lyanna ran off on her own it makes for a betrayal of Robert.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a feudal world. A lord is first loyal to himself and his chunk of the world, not his liege or a king. And if he sees an opening he is going to use it.

Robb was far too naive to even understand how Roose was screwing him, never mind that he could have actually seen through it.

But again - that only happened after the Blackwater and the Westerling marriage, not before.

A lord is first loyal to himself, but a lord loyal to himself is simply not a loyal one, be it feudal society or not.

Robb could not know that Roose was screwing him, not only because he had other troubles in mind and Roose attempts weren't obvious.

Roose was screwing Robb, yet not betraying him, since the very beginning, Ramsay was clearly Robb, completely with Roose blessing from the begining.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That's a ridiculous assumption. The Starks are not some collective or heroes. They are a long line of cruel and barbaric and conquering war lords who can afford to be generous in the present. Back in the day they did not win because they were the best people, but because they were the worst. You have to top skinning people alive to intimidate the Boltons - and the Starks must have done that somehow.

Sure you also have to keep promises and such if it is necessary, but the Starks wouldn't have conquered the North if they had not been willing to crush and submitting any opposition in their path.

They don't need to be heroes to not be traitors again a very weird correlation, Aegon 1 was a genocidal egoman who conquered Westeros because he could and yet the man didn't betray anyone.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that there is no indication that Robb would have had issues with Roose sacrificing lives to advance his own position in the North if he also got the job done Robb wanted him to do. Roose is loyal to his king (or should be) not the men under his command. He can use them as he sees fit.

If all of Roose's rivals mysteriously died under his command yet Robb would still conquer the castle he wanted or defeat the enemy he sent Roose out to defeat then this would be a glorious victory, not a betrayal of his king.

It is wrong to assume those lords see their peers as part of their own bloc. They do not. They are rivals, not friends, even if they are all subject to the same overlord or king.

There is no indication that he should've be happy either, Roose using the men as he sees fit don't deprive him of being disloyal, that's just a front door.

 

 

[Back door hodor]

11 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah he might've. His situation with Ygritte was a little different though. His life & his 'mission' kinda depended on keeping up the appearance of being 'with' Ygritte. Not to say he didn't have or develop feelings for her. He did try to keep her at bay though. If he did that with Jeyne or most any woman other than a wildling they wouldn't double down on their pursuit of him like Ygritte did. 

Gonna be honest, you've half convinced me, Jon did try his best to keep her at arms length, I just don't know if his best would have been enough in another scenario, impossible to say for sure though, and your guess is definitely as good as mine.

[James Steller]

21 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Both have the wolf-blood and that is what made them inconsistent.  But Robb's nature was tempered by the Tully blood.  He can control his emotions a little bit better, except when it really counted the most.  Jon is an angry young man with a big chip on his shoulders.  He acts on his emotions. 

Vengeful creatures the both of them.  Full of arrogance they were.  And thankfully both are dead. 

Both of these men are oathbreakers.  The Starks like to think of themselves as an honorable family.  That's not true.  It is their inability to conquer their desires and their emotions that have caused a lot of the problems for Westeros.  Westeros would have been so much better off if Aegon the Conqueror had killed the Starks and leveled Winterfell.

As if the Targaryens are any better at controlling their emotions. The Starks might be savage wolves, but at least they’re satisfied with the North. The Targaryens, Lannisters, Greyjoys, and Baratheons are all equally volatile and they all have a desire for conquest, especially the Targaryens and the Greyjoys. The latter have spent their entire existence being shit-stirrers, and the former have done untold destruction. If anyone should be wiped out, it’s those two houses. The Doom of Valyria should have taken all the dragon riders and the sea should give the Iron Islands the Atlantis treatment.