Jump to content
Nagini's Neville

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

Recommended Posts

Roose was a traito from the start. 

Robb removed Greatjon from command because the Umber wanted to force a march and take Tywin by surprise, and the young wolf didn't belive it was possible. Robb also didn't want to battle Tywin he wanted to lock him in position were he cannot aid Jaime. For this a defensive stance is a better move. 

Quote

“The Greatjon thinks we should take the battle to Lord Tywin and surprise him,” he said, “but the Glovers and the Karstarks feel we’d be wiser to go around his army and join up with Uncle Ser Edmure against the Kingslayer.

 

Quote

“Both plans have virtues, but . . . look, if we try to swing around Lord Tywin’s host, we take the risk of being caught between him and the Kingslayer, and if we attack him . . . by all reports, he has more men than I do, and a lot more armored horse. The Greatjon says that won’t matter if we catch him with his breeches down, but it seems to me that a man who has fought as many battles as Tywin Lannister won’t be so easily surprised.”

What Roose does? He forces a night march against Tywin, the same way Greatjon said. Even worse since that he actually catchs Tywin by surprise with the army not formed, but then chooses to stop and offer battle with a tired and hungry army, outnumbered and without cavalry, in the field that Tywin choose. 

Quote

… and woke in darkness to the blare of trumpets. Shae was shaking him by the shoulder. "M'lord," she whispered. "Wake up, m'lord. I'm frightened.".....The horns called through the night, wild and urgent, a cry that said hurry hurry hurry. He heard shouts, the clatter of spears, the whicker of horses, though nothing yet that spoke to him of fighting. "My lord father's trumpets," he said. "Battle assembly. I thought Stark was yet a day's march away."

The Lannisters were in complete disarray, but Bolton does not even try to take advantage of this. He just stopped and waited...

Quote

Men and horses blundered through the predawn chill; saddles were being cinched, wagons loaded, fires extinguished. The trumpets blew again hurry hurry hurry..... "Do you know what's happened?" Tyrion asked him."The Stark boy stole a march on us," Bronn said. "He crept down the kingsroad in the night, and now his host is less than a mile north of here.....

When Tyrion look at Roose's army, he does not see Bolton flags.

Quote

He glimpsed the bull moose of the Hornwoods, the Karstark sunburst, Lord Cerwyn’s battle-axe, and the mailed fist of the Glovers . . . and the twin towers of Frey, blue on grey. So much for his father’s certainty that Lord Walder would not bestir himself. The white of House Stark was seen everywhere, the grey direwolves seeming to run and leap as the banners swirled and streamed from the high staffs. Where is the boy? Tyrion wondered.

Had Roose just not forced his march, he would not even need to fight and his mission would be complete.

Tywin was days away from Riverrun, and even with a forced march he was too late to react properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 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.

 

You will never convince me that Roose was ever 100% loyal. His actions at the Green Fork prove to me that he was always leveraging a better position for himself at the expense of other Northmen, including Robb. He wasn’t supposed to rush into battle, but he drove his army on a night long march, loudly announce their presence, then abandon the high ground when Tywin appears? And on top of that, they go from 17000 to 10000 but the Bolton unit is essentially intact? And one of the men who died at the battle is Lord Halys Hornwood? I call betrayal and sabotage. Roose was trying to kill off his rivals through battle from the very start. 
 

also, I was writing this as the person above me commented, and they also make excellent points about Roose being a traitor.

Edited by James Steller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Steller said:

You will never convince me that Roose was ever 100% loyal. His actions at the Green Fork prove to me that he was always leveraging a better position for himself at the expense of other Northmen, including Robb. He wasn’t supposed to rush into battle, but he drove his army on a night long march, loudly announce their presence, then abandon the high ground when Tywin appears? And on top of that, they go from 17000 to 10000 but the Bolton unit is essentially intact? And one of the men who died at the battle is Lord Halys Hornwood? I call betrayal and sabotage. Roose was trying to kill off his rivals through battle from the very start. 
 

also, I was writing this as the person above me commented, and they also make excellent points about Roose being a traitor.

In all fairness, none of the banner lords were completely loyal.  Most bit their tongues and answered the call because they feared what the Starks might do to them.  Kinda makes you admire the houses who defied their lords paramount to support the crown. 

I would say Roose was within his legal rights to undermine the Starks because they were rebelling against the ruler of Westeros.  They are all, Starks and their banner lords, subjects of the crown.  The Starks were in the wrong and Roose can legally claim himself a loyalists to the crown.

Edited by Texas Hold Em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Steller said:

You will never convince me that Roose was ever 100% loyal. His actions at the Green Fork prove to me that he was always leveraging a better position for himself at the expense of other Northmen, including Robb. He wasn’t supposed to rush into battle, but he drove his army on a night long march, loudly announce their presence, then abandon the high ground when Tywin appears? And on top of that, they go from 17000 to 10000 but the Bolton unit is essentially intact? And one of the men who died at the battle is Lord Halys Hornwood? I call betrayal and sabotage. Roose was trying to kill off his rivals through battle from the very start. 
 

also, I was writing this as the person above me commented, and they also make excellent points about Roose being a traitor.

I haven't read the entire exchange between you two so I could be wrong but I didn't gather that Lord Varys was saying Roose was 100% loyal but that rather given different circumstances he would not have betrayed Robb. His betrayal ultimately derived from Robb's mistakes & making his situation within Robb's army look less desirable than what he may be in supporting the crown. 

16 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Most bit their tongues and answered the call because they feared what the Starks might do to them.  Kinda makes you admire the houses who defied their lords paramount to support the crown. 

Granted it's been a while since I've read the series but I don't recall thinking this at all. Do you have any quotes that back up the claim that people answered the call because they were afraid of what the Starks might do to them? 

I gathered the feeling that they answered the call for several reasons - out of duty, loyalty, & respect for Ned Stark. Most seemed to look up to him & consider him an honorable liege. 

18 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

would say Roose was within his legal rights to undermine the Starks because they were rebelling against the ruler of Westeros.  They are all, Starks and their banner lords, subjects of the crown.  The Starks were in the wrong and Roose can legally claim himself a loyalists to the crown

Sure, he was definitely within his legal rights, although considering he stood for Robb first the crown would have been within their legal rights to execute Roose as a traitor also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I haven't read the entire exchange between you two so I could be wrong but I didn't gather that Lord Varys was saying Roose was 100% loyal but that rather given different circumstances he would not have betrayed Robb. His betrayal ultimately derived from Robb's mistakes & making his situation within Robb's army look less desirable than what he may be in supporting the crown. 

26 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

But Roose was betraying Robb in the North, way before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frenin said:

But Roose was betraying Robb in the North, way before that.

This isn't the hill I'm willing to die on. I'm not completely convinced Roose wouldn't have always betrayed Robb, I was just trying to reiterate what Lord Varys said to the other poster because I gathered they thought LV was saying Roose was 100% loyal. 

For what it's worth I do tend to agree that he wasn't always going to betray him because why would he? If things looked better for Roose to stay loyal to Robb there would be no reason for him to betray him IMO. But I've been wrong plenty of times before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This isn't the hill I'm willing to die on. I'm not completely convinced Roose wouldn't have always betrayed Robb, I was just trying to reiterate what Lord Varys said to the other poster because I gathered they thought LV was saying Roose was 100% loyal. 

For what it's worth I do tend to agree that he wasn't always going to betray him because why would he? If things looked better for Roose to stay loyal to Robb there would be no reason for him to betray him IMO. But I've been wrong plenty of times before. 

Roose was keeping one foot on each camp while also severely weakening Robb's position, when not outright treason is outright disloyalty and  i can't think other word  to what the Boltons were pulling in the North, than treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious how people do interpret military actions and maneuvers as signs of disloyalty when we know nothing about the decision-making process, not even whether Robb wanted Roose to do something along those lines.

The idea that a single night march would somehow weaken his forces to a strong degree I don't buy. Perhaps they were taking it slow the days before that? Forced marches for days will weaken an army, a single night march would not.

Roose had nothing to gain by suffering a devastating defeat, nor had he much to gain by trying to doing everything in his power to defeat Tywin - which would be very hard.

The idea that Roose could actually storm into the Lannister camp with essentially no cavalry sounds pretty far-fetched to, not to mention we have no clue how spread out the Lannister camp was and where exactly the Lannister sentries first glimped the Northmen.

In fact, Roose's tactics helped with Robb's plans. They disguised the fact that the cavalry and Robb weren't there for as long as possible - which was the real plan.

The idea it is treason to put other men in danger rather than your own if you do have such men - and if those men are very eager to win glory in battle (or rather: get themselves killed) - makes no sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James Steller said:

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.

That's just nonsense. The Targaryens never conquered anything for a hundred years. They never tried to extend their lands to Essos or the lands beyond the Wall. The Starks were not content with 'the North'. They wanted the Three Sisters, too, and presumably also those parts of the Arryn lands they invaded or those chunks of the Riverlands they invaded during the millennia of endless warfare.

In fact, it is a misconception to talk of the regions the way we know them back in the day before the Conquest. There were some stable royal dynasties back then, but there were no fixed kingdoms nor borders. Everybody was fighting each other - kings were fighting kings and lords were fighting lords with or without the permission of their kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just nonsense. The Targaryens never conquered anything for a hundred years. They never tried to extend their lands to Essos or the lands beyond the Wall. The Starks were not content with 'the North'. They wanted the Three Sisters, too, and presumably also those parts of the Arryn lands they invaded or those chunks of the Riverlands they invaded during the millennia of endless warfare.

In fact, it is a misconception to talk of the regions the way we know them back in the day before the Conquest. There were some stable royal dynasties back then, but there were no fixed kingdoms nor borders. Everybody was fighting each other - kings were fighting kings and lords were fighting lords with or without the permission of their kings.

Reading about the winter wolves in dance of the dragons. Made me think that its quite possible that during harsh winters the kings of the north would send an army of old men and long beards to attack and raid the riverlands.
Maybe the North was able to feed itself during the long winters by sending raiding parties down south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Reading about the winter wolves in dance of the dragons. Made me think that its quite possible that during harsh winters the kings of the north would send an army of old men and long beards to attack and raid the riverlands.
Maybe the North was able to feed itself during the long winters by sending raiding parties down south.

That's something George seems to have told Ran as well - or Ran interpreted the whole winter wolves as such. But there wouldn't only be such winter attacks (which are also done by the wildlings in winters as we find out in FaB) but also attempts to do proper conquests.

The North isn't a nation-state, just like the Seven Kingdoms it is many people united only by the deference they show to the ruling dynasty. The crannogmen have nothing in common with the Umbers, the Bolton men nothing with the clansmen, the Barrowlanders nothing with the Skagosi, and the Bear Islanders nothing with the Manderly men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that a single night march would somehow weaken his forces to a strong degree I don't buy. Perhaps they were taking it slow the days before that? Forced marches for days will weaken an army, a single night march would not.

 

Tyrion disagree, and even says that this is a blunder...

The northerners would be exhausted after their long sleepless march. Tyrion wondered what the boy had been thinking

Roose was chosen to avoid battle, and distract Tywin, he does everything that Tywin wants by seekining it.

Lord Tywin Lannister did not smile. Lord Tywin never smiled, but Tyrion had learned to read his father’s pleasure all the same, and it was there on his face. “So the wolfling is leaving his den to play among the lions,” he said in a voice of quiet satisfaction. “Splendid. Return to Ser Addam and tell him to fall back. He is not to engage the northerners until we arrive, but I want him to harass their flanks and draw them farther south.”

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Roose had nothing to gain by suffering a devastating defeat, nor had he much to gain by trying to doing everything in his power to defeat Tywin - which would be very hard.

Ramsey would later on invade the Hornwood lands and forcefull marry Donella, after Roose sent her husband on a suicide mission.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 The idea that Roose could actually storm into the Lannister camp with essentially no cavalry sounds pretty far-fetched to, not to mention we have no clue how spread out the Lannister camp was and where exactly the Lannister sentries first glimped the Northmen.

Right, he shouldn't have marched at all... but since he did, attacking while the Lannisters are in dissaray was his only chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The North isn't a nation-state, just like the Seven Kingdoms it is many people united only by the deference they show to the ruling dynasty. The crannogmen have nothing in common with the Umbers, the Bolton men nothing with the clansmen, the Barrowlanders nothing with the Skagosi, and the Bear Islanders nothing with the Manderly men.

The North is a nation state, just like the Iron Islands and Dorne are,  the Bolton men,the Umber men, the Clansmen and the Barrowlanders etc are culturally, ethnically the same people ans follow the same religion.

They are well apart from the southerners and follow their own ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenin said:

The North is a nation state, just like the Iron Islands and Dorne are,  the Bolton men,the Umber men, the Clansmen and the Barrowlanders etc are culturally, ethnically the same people ans follow the same religion.

They are well apart from the southerners and follow their own ways.

The North is neither a nation or state. It’s a feudal kingdom with a hierarchy in which each person has to answer to someone. They don’t have organised health care systems, school systems, or the justice department. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

The North is neither a nation or state. It’s a feudal kingdom with a hierarchy in which each person has to answer to someone. They don’t have organised health care systems, school systems, or the justice department.

Exactly, none of the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne has a sense of proto-nationalism - i.e. a sense of unity that constructs a national identity telling the 'us vs. them' narrative where the smallfolk are part of the 'us'.

All the other places have just lords who care about their lands and property and who move the borders of their lands as they see fit when they switch allegiances or acknowledge this or that king.

Just because your liege lord suddenly changed doesn't mean this creates a cultural identity or changes your everyday life. What the peasant thinks is irrelevant in all that, because smallfolk have no voice in politics. They do as they are told, which is the very reason why conquering a land means you get the lords and kings there do homage to you, not the peasants.

But there is another quality to that. Even the very names and styles of the kings do not even remotely reflect that they had a concept of proto-nation states. The Targaryen kings are not 'the Kings of Westeros' or 'the Kings of the Seven Kingdoms' they are the Kings of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, meaning they are the kings of peoples rather than lands, sort of like the ancient medieval kings were the kings of English, the kings of the Scots, the kings of the Francs, etc.

Even more striking are the styles of the kings before the kings - the King of the Rock, the King of Mountain and Vale, the Storm King, etc.

Those titles do not refer to lands and places nor do they in any way define their domains - indicating that their king of everything they think they can conquer, not kings of a grown and orderly nation state.

Even the names of the kingdoms are vague. What is 'the North'? How far in the west do the Westerlands start? The domains of the Arryns extend the Vale of Arryn, yet only that Vale is named after them. Why is that?

On the world-building level it makes absolutely no sense that Westeros is as culturally homogenous as it is, but even if it weren't - what keeps those people together to the sense they are together is their allegiance to a particular lord or king, not a common culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Exactly, none of the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne has a sense of proto-nationalism - i.e. a sense of unity that constructs a national identity telling the 'us vs. them' narrative where the smallfolk are part of the 'us'.

I think the Iron born would also have that sort of nationalism. Us vs Them. Iron born don't kill Ironborn rule could mean that they are a nationalistic people. The North would also be sort of close, but not as nationalistic as Dorne or the iron isles, but definitely a good 3rd position. Its alien culture/religion would very likely band its people together and become more nationalist when compared to the rest of the southern kingdoms.

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

All the other places have just lords who care about their lands and property and who move the borders of their lands as they see fit when they switch allegiances or acknowledge this or that king.

I read somewhere that during the middle ages borders were very strange. Like the king and local nobles wouldn't know where exactly the border with their neighbouring kingdom is.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is another quality to that. Even the very names and styles of the kings do not even remotely reflect that they had a concept of proto-nation states. The Targaryen kings are not 'the Kings of Westeros' or 'the Kings of the Seven Kingdoms' they are the Kings of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, meaning they are the kings of peoples rather than lands, sort of like the ancient medieval kings were the kings of English, the kings of the Scots, the kings of the Francs, etc.

Kings of the people that live within the land. The smallfolk are the ones that work the land.

Its quite funny tho because today we still have nation-states that are referred to kingdoms such as Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom, Kingdom of Denmark etc. They are referred to as kingdoms because they have a ruling monarch (with very little power), with a democratic government running the affairs of the nation. 

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Even more striking are the styles of the kings before the kings - the King of the Rock, the King of Mountain and Vale, the Storm King, etc.

Those titles do not refer to lands and places nor do they in any way define their domains - indicating that their king of everything they think they can conquer, not kings of a grown and orderly nation state.

Even the names of the kingdoms are vague. What is 'the North'? How far in the west do the Westerlands start? The domains of the Arryns extend the Vale of Arryn, yet only that Vale is named after them. Why is that?

King of the rock, stormlands, and mountain would probably refer to the land they rule. The Lannisters rule from the rock of casterly rock whilst also the westerlands is full of mountains. Same for the stormlands which are referred to stormlands due to its heavy storms. 

If the Durrandon king were to conquer the reach because he has a strong claim. He would be known as the King of the Stormlands and the Reach. Same as how Robb was called the king in the north and trident. The Scottish-English monarchs that ruled the joint kingdoms of England and Scotland were referred to as the king of England, Scotland, and the lord of Ireland. Until the United Kingdom was born. 

However, if the durrandon king takes Ashford and its associated lands, im guessing theyd just refer that land to stormlands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to call 14-16 year olds in Leadership positions for hundreds (Jon) to millions (Robb) in a medieval society stupid... I do not think either one of them is stupid. However, inexperienced (both), naive (Robb), gullible (Robb), stubborn (both) to name a few. I think Jon shows much greater promise when it comes to the political side of things, while Robb has a more sound martial mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I think the Iron born would also have that sort of nationalism. Us vs Them. Iron born don't kill Ironborn rule could mean that they are a nationalistic people. The North would also be sort of close, but not as nationalistic as Dorne or the iron isles, but definitely a good 3rd position. Its alien culture/religion would very likely band its people together and become more nationalist when compared to the rest of the southern kingdoms.

I thought of the Ironborn for a moment, but they are followers of an imperial idea. They like conquest, they want to rule other lands and make them part of their own. And their way of life is one that foreigners certainly can pick up. You can be the son of a thrall and still become a raider.

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I read somewhere that during the middle ages borders were very strange. Like the king and local nobles wouldn't know where exactly the border with their neighbouring kingdom is.

Sure, such things are very modern concepts.

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Kings of the people that live within the land. The smallfolk are the ones that work the land.

It is also the concept that you rule a people regardless where they live. They are not identical with some land and can move around.

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

King of the rock, stormlands, and mountain would probably refer to the land they rule. The Lannisters rule from the rock of casterly rock whilst also the westerlands is full of mountains. Same for the stormlands which are referred to stormlands due to its heavy storms. 

Yeah, but those are very vague styles. Storm King doesn't refer to a land at all, the King in the North is not the King of the North but rather sort of 'the king who lives in the north'.

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

If the Durrandon king were to conquer the reach because he has a strong claim. He would be known as the King of the Stormlands and the Reach. Same as how Robb was called the king in the north and trident. The Scottish-English monarchs that ruled the joint kingdoms of England and Scotland were referred to as the king of England, Scotland, and the lord of Ireland. Until the United Kingdom was born. 

Sure, eventually the names of the kingdoms would have developed to the point where they described at least some sort of core country, but the border regions or outer provinces wouldn't be part of that, since the borders were always fluid.

How much heartland the Storm Kings lost, for instance, is unclear. We know they declined for centuries before the Conquest, so *originally* the Stormlands may have been much more impressive. In fact, could be that the Dornish Marches of the Reach originally or at some point were Storm King territory.

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

However, if the durrandon king takes Ashford and its associated lands, im guessing theyd just refer that land to stormlands. 

Sure, because those names wouldn't have much meaning, anyway. The legal stuff revolves around which lord is doing which king homage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robb lacked the self-discipline to keep to his vows.  Jon was the same way.  He lacked the discipline to put duty ahead of personal feelings.  Jon was tasked with the protection of mankind in Westeros and he chose his sister instead.  People in power make the wrong decisions and these two are the primary examples.  They failed the people and died for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, frenin said:

Roose was keeping one foot on each camp while also severely weakening Robb's position, when not outright treason is outright disloyalty and  i can't think other word  to what the Boltons were pulling in the North, than treason.

Honestly the more I read of this thread the more convinced I am that you are right & the Bolton's did plan to betray Robb all along. I'm not positive but you guys certainly make some good arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×