Jump to content
Nagini's Neville

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, divica said:

Robb doesn t know that bed was beheaded at this time. Just that he was imprisoned. If I remember correctly he only finds out about his father death when he sleeps with the we sterling. 

 

Ofc he does, the whole Realm does. What he finds out when he slept with Jeyne was that his brothers had died.

 

2 minutes ago, divica said:

Just that they imprisoned his father. He has no idea what really happened. And their reasons were basically that no baratheon was from the north or knew the north... Hardly worthy reasons to break faith... 

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

He doesn't that his father was wrongfully imprisoned and wrongfully executed you mean?? No, he does't.

He breaks faith because he's done with the Baratheons, just as Roose was done with him, you may not like it, that doesn't mean is not enough for them.

 

 

5 minutes ago, divica said:

 And all the pretenders to the throne are baratheons. Nobody knows how joff, Stannis or Renly will react to Tywin's actions. They need more information... 

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

Since neither Renly nor Stannis did shit to prevent or stop Tywin's actions, that's very self explanotory, Joff and Tommen are Lannister Baratheons, so again not an option there.

 

7 minutes ago, divica said:

And what about edmure acting against his orders? Trusting roose all the time? The karstark dilemma? The way he handled jaime's imprisonment (if I remember right cat was sure that the men would kill him that night)? His inability to get allies? 

 

  • It's still and will be discussed by the end of times who was wrong there i'll give you that.
  • Roose had een nothing but a loyal servant to the Stark cause, from Rickard to Robb, having to know he'd pull what he pull is Bran the Broken levels of power. I'll will excuse him for not having Bran the broken power.
  • There was no Karstark dilemma, Karstark had killed not only hostages but Robb's own men, the man had to go and instead of begging for mercy, he did what he did.
  • Are you saying that the right thing to do was allowing her mother's execution?? You know what kind of shitstorm that folly would cause?? 
  • Lmao, Renly, Stannis and Joffrey wanted him to bend the knee, he couldn't bend the knee, Renly was killed by a shadowbaby and his men blamed Robb's mother and his only natural ally, hated the Starks to the core, not to mention that Lysa didn't want to help his family. Please, Robb had many faults but give him a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't recall getting Robb's reasons but I would imagine it was a mixture of loving his father & wanting to save him, in part because he believes him to be innocent, but also to keep face. Had he done nothing it could have done damage to the North's reputation - something that could have been devastating considering the predicament his father was currently in.

Compare Robb to Doran Martell. Tywin and the other rebels killed his sister, nephew, and niece in the most cruelest of ways. Honor would have dictated that he avenged them. But did he start another war after the end of the Rebellion? No, he did not. He still wants vengeance but he also doesn't want to start a war he will lose.

Now, the North would and did lose a war they would essentially fight against all the other Seven Kingdoms (in fact, they would also very likely lose a war they fight only against the Westerlands) so Robb's war was doomed from the start - at least as a war to (1) topple King Joffrey without half or more of the Seven Kingdoms as allies and (2) as a war to create and maintain his independent kingdom (which wasn't the original plan, anyway).

Starting a modest military campaign to put pressure on Joffrey and the Lannisters was something that could be done - but you do also have to have a plan how to make peace afterwards and how to extend the pressure so you can get what you want. You also cannot allow yourself to get in 'all or nothing' mode should your father be killed (as it happened) since then you might go down the way Robb did.

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree with all of this. He should have done this but I understand why he didn't. 

I understand it, too. That's what good literature should do - to make you understand why people do what they do. But that doesn't mean they have good reasons or do the right thing. Just that they make sense. We also understand why Tyrion does not give up Shae after the Blackwater (a terrible mistake), why Sansa goes to Cersei to tell her about her father's plans, etc.

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

In all fairness though I'm usually talking about morals. They are much more important to me when considering someone's worth than the legality of the issue. 

Sure, and I'm not necessarily saying Ned did the wrong thing when he tried to spare Robert grief - but he did make his own position much more difficult that way, endangering and eventually ruining his own life and the lives of his daughters. That was just stupid.

However, it is also clear that what Ned did has some treasonous aspects to it, too. One cannot just deny or ignore that.

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Anything that the King says or orders is technically legal, no matter how bad or wrong that King might be. That doesn't make what he says or commands right or good. I know you understand this, I'm just explaining myself here. 

It is not just about the king - Ned had a legal obligation to his king as well as a moral obligation to his friend. And he also had obligations to the Seven Kingdoms and his family - as Hand he was charged with keeping the King's Peace. And what he intended to do wasn't doing the latter. He is aware that insisting Stannis must be king will cause a war yet he wants to do that, anyway.

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I know we are kind of going in circles with this so maybe we just have to agree to disagree but Ned being wrongfully imprisoned is a tyrannical act by Cersei & the simple fact that she is ruling the realm as Queen regent when the child she is regent to is not the King's child means she is breaking the law. Granted, Robb does what he does not knowing this, but we know it. We know Cersei nor her children have any rightful claim to the Iron Throne & any command given by her under those pretenses should be null & void. 

Sure, but we are in a very privileged position there. Stannis also rebels against Joffrey and he does not know the truth about his parentage. He very, very, strongly believes he is right, but he has no proof.

Cersei stages a coup and prevents Ned from becoming Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm for her son - but she doesn't install a king Robert Baratheon did not want to install. We know Robert Baratheon named Joffrey his heir and successor and, thanks to Ned, we will never know what Robert would have done on his deathbed had he told him the truth.

Without Robert's own ruling on the matter Ned has nothing - that's why he didn't intend to actually settle the matter but rather wanted to imprison Cersei and children with the help of the City Watch. Sure, Cersei herself admitted the truth to Ned, but she is not going to repeat that in public. And Ned cannot just decree Joffrey isn't Robert's son and expect the world to believe that because he says so. Granted, perhaps people would also not be willing to believe Robert's decree stating that, now that he is dead, but then Ned would actually have the word of the late king to back him up. He would not just stand there alone throwing dirt at the king's widow and his children.

Insofar as coups are concerned, both Cersei and Ned wanted/did stage coups. Ned wanted to get himself installed as Joffrey's regent to then arrest and Joffrey and his mother to declare him a bastard and prevent his coronation (which is a coup because he did not just do things outright), and Cersei did stage a coup to prevent Ned from doing that (and seized the regency along the way).

But it is not correct that Cersei staged a coup to install an heir/king Robert did not also anoint before - he way have done so under false pretenses, being fooled about who was his biological son, but that doesn't change the fact that he wanted Joffrey to succeed him till the end, just as it doesn't change the fact that we'll never know what Robert would have wanted he known the truth.

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Wouldn't the marriage typically be enough for the other party to take up arms to defend them? It's kind of the point of political marriages, to make those alliances.

Sure, but that's just an alliance between the Tullys and the Starks. It is completely arbitrary, something the powerful do and then the common people and even the other lords have suddenly act as if they care who the brother-in-law or grandfather of their lord is.

10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

None of it matters to the common people. They don't care much who the King is or probably who their Lord is so long as they are left in peace. Unfortunately they are always the ones to suffer the most. This isn't a fault of Robb's or Ned's or the Northmen defending RR or vice versa though. It's the fault of the system. Granted it is the Noble Lord's & Ladies that are upholding this system so some blame lies with them collectively, but it does not lie solely at Robb's feet 

Not solely, but Robb is definitely responsible for depleting the North of defenders and for all the people he got killed in his war. He did not have to start it, nor did he have to continue it.

We see that there are lords who have other priorities beside honor and vengeance - like Doran Martell. He knows that a wrong decision can lead to the death of innocents, and he puts that priority before his ego - as a good ruler should.

There are, even in Westeros, some people who are more responsible than others - and Robb and even Ned are not among those. Jon showed a lot of promise in that department in ACoK and ASoS. But in ADwD he decided to care as much - or even more - about family bonds as about the common good. Despite the fact that in his position he no longer had a right to do the former.

Share this post


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

The point here that I was originally making, that you have glossed over entirely, is that you proclaimed Robb should have supported Stannis's claim to the throne. I asked why, he would support Robert's brother's claim to the IT when he had no proof & probably no knowledge at all that the Lannister children are bastards. 

I glossed because I thought Stannis had sent letters about the children being bastards. I was wrong... 

But him accepting kingship was a huge mistake. If he wanted to remain in the north it was the right move. But if he wanted to March on KL it was idiotic... He would never defeat the Lannisters, March to kl, kill joff and then return north... He just didn t have the numbers for that. 

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I imagine he didn't know what to expect but was prepared for the worst. After they beheaded his father he probably knew very well what to expect but it would have been entirely stupid to lay down his swords & surrender at that point. As a matter of fact I think it would have been a huge mistake to not march on KL the moment they imprisoned Ned. That being said, marching on KL didn't turn out so well for Robb either so I don't think there was a way he could have come out of this unscathed.

The problem is that Robb could have saved his sisters and the lives of his men. He could have traded Jaime or abdicated his crown and joined 1 of the baratheons. He could have tried to persuade the vale, dorne or the reach to his cause supporting them in conquering the IT (as long as it isn t a Lannister he doesn t care who sits there). 

The way Robb handled the situation was probably the worst way possible. He isolated himself by accepting kingship and at the same time tried to March on KL... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, frenin said:
  • Roose had een nothing but a loyal servant to the Stark cause, from Rickard to Robb, having to know he'd pull what he pull is Bran the Broken levels of power. I'll will excuse him for not having Bran the broken power.
  • There was no Karstark dilemma, Karstark had killed not only hostages but Robb's own men, the man had to go and instead of begging for mercy, he did what he did.
  • Are you saying that the right thing to do was allowing her mother's execution?? You know what kind of shitstorm that folly would cause?? 
  • Lmao, Renly, Stannis and Joffrey wanted him to bend the knee, he couldn't bend the knee, Renly was killed by a shadowbaby and his men blamed Robb's mother and his only natural ally, hated the Starks to the core, not to mention that Lysa didn't want to help his family. Please, Robb had many faults but give him a break.

There were rumors about roose. And if I remember correctly roose tried to make make the other lords lose men while he conserved his. Obviously that Robb couldn t predict the red wedding, but he shouldn t have trusted roose so much. He should have noticed something... 

There were a lot of ways to handle that. First put men paying more attention to karstark because the man might do something. Then he could either have sent the guy to the wall or keep him a prisoner during the war to ensure his men remain loyal. Robb's actions were just short-sighted. 

He needed to have done something to show he was punishing his mother. But even without cat's intervention wasn t she sure his men were going to kill Jaime that night? He was going to loose his most important prisoner... 

Robb could have offered things to persuade them. He barely even tried to get allies...  Tywin won the war because he won the tyrells. Even after being married Robb had edmure and his sisters to offer 8n marriage besides helping in conquering the IT... This is just one of the examples of how bad a politician Robb was. 

Share this post


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

Robb was young, imature, & made some bad mistakes. Worst of all sleeping with Jeyne & marrying her. It's hard to say what may have happened if he didn't but had he kept his oath to the Frey's he may have kept their support & with their support he may have overthrown Cersei & the Lannisters. 

I know that him marrying Jeyne to fix the sleeping with her part was a terrible decision, but I'm not sure that it really matters in the grand scheme of things. The Battle of the Blackwater and Tywin's win there was ,I think, the decisive factor. The Freys that were at Harrenhal with Roose were already advocating for Robb ending his war and bending the knee. I think it might have been a matter of time before Walder Frey tried to pull his men back. Roose was already undermining Robb's campaign by loosing Ramsay in the north and I think Winterfell had been taken by Theon.

As far as errors in judgement go, I think not telling Edmure to allow Tywin and his men to cross into the westerlands was a much bigger mistake. Edmure throwing back the Lannister troops allowed them to connect with the Tyrell host and march on Stannis and King's Landing. Stannis was minutes away from breaching the walls when the Tyrells and Lannisters fell on him. I'm not even sure why Edmure was kept out of these plans. The whole "I told you to hold Riverrun" and not expect him to try and protect his lands was completely stupid.

It wasn't just Stannis's sun that set after the Blackwater (I think it was Tywin who said that). Robb, I think was also done right then and there. I think the Jeyne Westerling marriage merely gave the Freys the reason they were looking for to abandon Robb.

Edited by Alexis-something-Rose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I know that him marrying Jeyne to fix the sleeping with her part was a terrible decision, but I'm not sure that it really matters in the grand scheme of things. The Battle of the Blackwater and Tywin's win there was ,I think, the decisive factor. The Freys that were at Harrenhal with Roose were already advocating for Robb ending his war and bending the knee. I think it might have been a matter of time before Walder Frey tried to pull his men back. Roose was already undermining Robb's campaign by loosing Ramsay in the north and I think Winterfell had been taken by Theon.

Yeah, I think so too. Both the Freys and Roose would have changed sides the second it became convenient for them. They could have remained loyal all the way through, but only if Robb kept winning. Marrying Jeyne was indeed a bad decision, however honourable, but in the end it only really provided the Freys w/ an excuse to jump ship. If Robb was still winning and things were still going favourably for him, even the Westerling match wouldn’t have mattered that much. Walder Frey would milk the shit out the offence, and get a bunch out of it besides having a daughter be Lady of Riverrun. 

2 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

As far as errors in judgement go, I think not telling Edmure to allow Tywin and his men to cross into the westerlands was a much bigger mistake. Edmure throwing back the Lannister troops allowed them to connect with the Tyrell host and march on Stannis and King's Landing. Stannis was minutes away from breaching the walls when the Tyrells and Lannisters fell on him. I'm not even sure why Edmure was kept out of these plans. The whole "I told you to hold Riverrun" and not expect him to try and protect his lands was completely stupid.

Agree 100%. But “demands of the plot”, I suppose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, divica said:

There were rumors about roose. And if I remember correctly roose tried to make make the other lords lose men while he conserved his. Obviously that Robb couldn t predict the red wedding, but he shouldn t have trusted roose so much. He should have noticed something... 

 

Yeah, there were rumours that he was a vampire lmao, Roose did nothing that Robb could believe treasonous as simple as that and that's why he kept his head unyil the fatal blow, saying that he shoud notice something is just talking with the benefit of hindsight and omniscience.

 

22 minutes ago, divica said:

 There were a lot of ways to handle that. First put men paying more attention to karstark because the man might do something. Then he could either have sent the guy to the wall or keep him a prisoner during the war to ensure his men remain loyal. Robb's actions were just short-sighted. 

 

Karstark only do something because Cat's act, they barely iirc had time for more and i don't think Karstark was saying that he was going to pull what he pulled,  if he send the man ti the wall or is kept prisoner his men would defect all the same, Karstark was begging for death while at the same time not wanting it.

 

 

22 minutes ago, divica said:

 He needed to have done something to show he was punishing his mother. But even without cat's intervention wasn t she sure his men were going to kill Jaime that night? He was going to loose his most important prisoner... 

 

He did, he exiled his mother, sending his mother to the silent sisters or executing her would just stupid.

Cat feared the men but that wasn't a given.

 

 

22 minutes ago, divica said:

 Robb could have offered things to persuade them. He barely even tried to get allies...  Tywin won the war because he won the tyrells. Even after being married Robb had edmure and his sisters to offer 8n marriage besides helping in conquering the IT... This is just one of the examples of how bad a politician Robb was. 

  • Tywin, Stannis and Renly wanted his submission, not his alligiance.
  • Robb tried to get allies, you know that.
  • Tywin neither won the war nor he won over the Tyrells, Tyrion and LF did that, Tyrion was the one who won the war, Tywin is the face you put in front because it's better than Tyrions.
  • And why would the Tyrells want Edmure or his sisters?? They were aiming to the IT and their only way to get there was a Baratheon, they could want to secure the North, i mean Olenna being the one with half brain would, but only after the Throne, the Tyrells, Lysa and Balon would smply not help Robb.
  • This is just one of the examples that how good is talking with hindsight.

 

44 minutes ago, divica said:

But him accepting kingship was a huge mistake. If he wanted to remain in the north it was the right move. But if he wanted to March on KL it was idiotic... He would never defeat the Lannisters, March to kl, kill joff and then return north... He just didn t have the numbers for that. 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He would've never defeated the Lannisters?? He was bearing them until the Blackwater, had he ever defeated the Lannisters, take KL and march back home was failry easy, he wouldn't have to worry about Riverlandrs and Valemen taking him fir the rear.  I don't know why people think that The Lannisters can't be defeated, they were being defeated.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

wasn't just Stannis's sun that set after the Blackwater (I think it was Tywin who said that). Robb, I think was also done right then and there. I think the Jeyne Westerling marriage merely gave the Freys the reason they were looking for to abandon Robb.

I think it is more accurate to say that Tywin won when Mel decided to kill Renly. He was the only one of his enemies that bothered with alliances. 

After his death both Robb and Stannis were alone. Even if there wasn t a red wedding Robb would need to deal with the Iron born and by the time he was ready to look south again Tywin would have had enough time to prepare for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, divica said:

I think it is more accurate to say that Tywin won when Mel decided to kill Renly. He was the only one of his enemies that bothered with alliances. 

If that's what you want to say, that's fine. I think the conclusion is that every mistake that was made compounded the next one. Stannis and Renly could have joined together to defeat a common enemy, but they chose to try and kill one another instead. Doesn't make them all that smart.

Share this post


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

But him accepting kingship was a huge mistake. If he wanted to remain in the north it was the right move. But if he wanted to March on KL it was idiotic... He would never defeat the Lannisters, March to kl, kill joff and then return north... He just didn t have the numbers for that.

Well it turned out he didn't have the numbers but that was after the Karstarks, Freys, & Boltons jumped ship. He may have had the numbers if they hadn't. At any rate, he couldn't just "remain in the North". They held his father & sisters captive. He had no choice but to march against them. 

 

1 hour ago, divica said:

The problem is that Robb could have saved his sisters and the lives of his men. He could have traded Jaime or abdicated his crown and joined 1 of the baratheons. He could have tried to persuade the vale, dorne or the reach to his cause supporting them in conquering the IT (as long as it isn t a Lannister he doesn t care who sits there). 

He couldn't have traded Jaime for his sisters had he just "remained in the North" though. He wouldn't even have Jaime if he hadn't marched against the Lannisters. Abdicating the crown would have done nothing for his cause other than lost him some loyal northerners who crowned him to begin with. 

1 hour ago, divica said:

The way Robb handled the situation was probably the worst way possible. He isolated himself by accepting kingship and at the same time tried to March on KL...

I disagree 100%. How did accepting the KitN title isolate him? How would remaining in the north have done anything for his cause? He may as well have not called his banners if he was going to just hang out with them & do nothing. 

 

Share this post


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

Compare Robb to Doran Martell. Tywin and the other rebels killed his sister, nephew, and niece in the most cruelest of ways. Honor would have dictated that he avenged them. But did he start another war after the end of the Rebellion? No, he did not. He still wants vengeance but he also doesn't want to start a war he will lose

Right, I mean I get that but not everyone agrees with Doran's methods either though. Considering Doran is still alive & Robb is not, it seems the best thing to do to stay alive at least. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, the North would and did lose a war they would essentially fight against all the other Seven Kingdoms (in fact, they would also very likely lose a war they fight only against the Westerlands) so Robb's war was doomed from the start - at least as a war to (1) topple King Joffrey without half or more of the Seven Kingdoms as allies and (2) as a war to create and maintain his independent kingdom (which wasn't the original plan, anyway).

That's how it turned out but I don't think it had to turn out that way. There are scenarios where Robb gained more support instead of losing support & then maybe had a fighting chance. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Starting a modest military campaign to put pressure on Joffrey and the Lannisters was something that could be done - but you do also have to have a plan how to make peace afterwards and how to extend the pressure so you can get what you want. You also cannot allow yourself to get in 'all or nothing' mode should your father be killed (as it happened) since then you might go down the way Robb did.

Agreed & this was a big mistake on Robb's part. I think it started out as this & Robb being young, hot headed, imature, & grief stricken let it get away from him. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I understand it, too. That's what good literature should do - to make you understand why people do what they do. But that doesn't mean they have good reasons or do the right thing. Just that they make sense. We also understand why Tyrion does not give up Shae after the Blackwater (a terrible mistake), why Sansa goes to Cersei to tell her about her father's plans, etc.

Right. They do sometimes have good reasons though. I think Ned's reasons are pretty good & although not giving up Shae after BL was a terrible mistake I don't think his reasons were necessarily wrong either. I think what is right & wrong is very much up to interpretation in many cases. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, and I'm not necessarily saying Ned did the wrong thing when he tried to spare Robert grief - but he did make his own position much more difficult that way, endangering and eventually ruining his own life and the lives of his daughters. That was just stupid.

However, it is also clear that what Ned did has some treasonous aspects to it, too. One cannot just deny or ignore that.

I agree fully. One of Ned's biggest flaws is that he has no idea how to be "treasonous" successfully. He would never have survived the Game of Thrones because of this. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not just about the king - Ned had a legal obligation to his king as well as a moral obligation to his friend. And he also had obligations to the Seven Kingdoms and his family - as Hand he was charged with keeping the King's Peace. And what he intended to do wasn't doing the latter. He is aware that insisting Stannis must be king will cause a war yet he wants to do that, anyway.

Right but he is also aware that supporting Joffrey's claim to the throne is not honorable because Joffrey really has no claim to the throne. I think he felt he was fulfilling his obligations to the 7K & as Hand by declaring the rightful heir to the IT. I'll agree it wasn't keeping the King's Peace though. It's Jaime's conundrum - how to keep all vows & oaths & obligations? Had he kept the King's Peace he would have not been fulfilling his obligation to the 7K & as hand by supporting a fake. He could have possibly avoided all of this by letting Robert know but since he didn't, after Robert died, I think he was trying to fulfill his obligations the best he knew how. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but we are in a very privileged position there. Stannis also rebels against Joffrey and he does not know the truth about his parentage. He very, very, strongly believes he is right, but he has no proof.

In Stannis's defense there is no DNA testing or anything that would offer actual proof.  I get caught up here because just because someone doesn't know about the crime you have committed doesn't mean you haven't committed that crime. So just because Stannis may not know or have proof of Cersei's infedlity & subsequent bastards doesn't mean she is the rightfully the Queen Regent. But on the other hand to be justified in rebelling you would need to know that she has committed this or some other crime that would negate her Queen Regent status. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around where I should stand on this. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei stages a coup and prevents Ned from becoming Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm for her son - but she doesn't install a king Robert Baratheon did not want to install. We know Robert Baratheon named Joffrey his heir and successor and, thanks to Ned, we will never know what Robert would have done on his deathbed had he told him the truth.

Yeah, as much as I understand Ned was coming from a good place by not telling Robert on his deathbed he sure did muck things up. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not solely, but Robb is definitely responsible for depleting the North of defenders and for all the people he got killed in his war. He did not have to start it, nor did he have to continue it.

We see that there are lords who have other priorities beside honor and vengeance - like Doran Martell. He knows that a wrong decision can lead to the death of innocents, and he puts that priority before his ego - as a good ruler should.

There are, even in Westeros, some people who are more responsible than others - and Robb and even Ned are not among those. Jon showed a lot of promise in that department in ACoK and ASoS. But in ADwD he decided to care as much - or even more - about family bonds as about the common good. Despite the fact that in his position he no longer had a right to do the former.

I'm sure you've noticed I'm a pretty staunch Jon supporter & while I completely understand he has made mistakes (& don't necessarily disagree with anything you have said here) I don't think we will ever reach common ground regarding Jon. 

Sure Robb is responsible for depleting the North of defenders but whether or not he "had" to start & continue it, I think is pretty subjective. Robb certainly felt as if he "had" to start & continue as I'm sure he didn't just want to go to war, get men killed, & put his own life at risk for the fun of it. You or I may disagree that the need for vengenace or justice does not constitute having to start a war but Robb &/or the Northerners may feel differently. 

At any rate, Robb is just as responsible as any other Lord or King that has taken to battle & the small folk suffered for it. Even when the battle is absolutely necessary the high born care very little for saving the small folk nor do they prepare their battle strategy with how it will effect them in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Robb never learns the kids might be bastards iirc & if he does hear the rumors he definitely doesn't know it for sure so again, there would absolutely no reason to support Stannis's claim to the throne! Robb had to do no such thing. 

 

Robb would have declared for Stannis even if Joffrey was the true heir, since Joffrey and Tommen were seem as Lannisters, but Stannis had no political timing, and even after Robert deaths he spend mounths doing nothing while Renly crowed himself instantly and messed everything up in the sucession. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I know that him marrying Jeyne to fix the sleeping with her part was a terrible decision, but I'm not sure that it really matters in the grand scheme of things. The Battle of the Blackwater and Tywin's win there was ,I think, the decisive factor. The Freys that were at Harrenhal with Roose were already advocating for Robb ending his war and bending the knee. I think it might have been a matter of time before Walder Frey tried to pull his men back. Roose was already undermining Robb's campaign by loosing Ramsay in the north and I think Winterfell had been taken by Theon.

As far as errors in judgement go, I think not telling Edmure to allow Tywin and his men to cross into the westerlands was a much bigger mistake. Edmure throwing back the Lannister troops allowed them to connect with the Tyrell host and march on Stannis and King's Landing. Stannis was minutes away from breaching the walls when the Tyrells and Lannisters fell on him. I'm not even sure why Edmure was kept out of these plans. The whole "I told you to hold Riverrun" and not expect him to try and protect his lands was completely stupid.

It wasn't just Stannis's sun that set after the Blackwater (I think it was Tywin who said that). Robb, I think was also done right then and there. I think the Jeyne Westerling marriage merely gave the Freys the reason they were looking for to abandon Robb.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the Boltons & certainly not the Frey's are loyal to a fault, only that things could have went differently for Robb had he not lost the support he had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Robb would have declared for Stannis even if Joffrey was the true heir, since Joffrey and Tommen were seem as Lannisters, but Stannis had no political timing, and even after Robert deaths he spend mounths doing nothing while Renly crowed himself instantly and messed everything up in the sucession. 

Well why didn't he declare for Stannis then? LOL 

Share this post


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

The problem is that Robb could have saved his sisters and the lives of his men. He could have traded Jaime or abdicated his crown and joined 1 of the baratheons. He could have tried to persuade the vale, dorne or the reach to his cause supporting them in conquering the IT (as long as it isn t a Lannister he doesn t care who sits there). 

 

He tried everything you just said...

He try to get the Vale, but Lysa ignored him. He tried to get the IB but instead Balon atacked him, Dorne was too far geographic and we know that Doran would not join him anyway, he tried to reach to Renly but Renly died, and Stannis was insignificant with his small army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, the North would and did lose a war they would essentially fight against all the other Seven Kingdoms (in fact, they would also very likely lose a war they fight only against the Westerlands) so Robb's war was doomed from the start - at least as a war to (1) topple King Joffrey without half or more of the Seven Kingdoms as allies and (2) as a war to create and maintain his independent kingdom (which wasn't the original plan, anyway).

 

Robb was crushing Tywin until a alliance with the Reach and the Stormlords was made... a alliance that Tywin had no part in the making.

Robb crushed 2 out 3 Lannisters army, took control over the Riverlands and scorched the Westerlands, all while Tywin was sitting in waiting or getting beat by Edmure.

If Tywin was alone against Robb he would end the campaing embarassed.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Compare Robb to Doran Martell. Tywin and the other rebels killed his sister, nephew, and niece in the most cruelest of ways. Honor would have dictated that he avenged them. But did he start another war after the end of the Rebellion? No, he did not. He still wants vengeance but he also doesn't want to start a war he will lose.

 

Not really comparable here.

Doran already had lost his war, Robb was still fighting his, Doran is much older and independent, Robb was merely acting as lord while his father was away, rescuing Eddard was not only his ambition but his duty. Doran was offered peace by Jon Arryn after KL, Robb was never given this oportunity after blackwater.

Doran also managed to allianate his heir and niece, and lost support of his strongest bannerman because he couldn't control his brother.

And in the end Doran is seeking war, how the hell will he depose the Lannisters and put a Targ on the throne without a war?

Edited by Arthur Peres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 867-5309 said:

Jon would have slept with Jeyne if he had wanted to.  Oaths and vows have never prevented Jon from doing what he truly wanted to do.  He lacked the character and the discipline to do the job he was elected to do.  Robb was broken from the beginning.  He was going to war and it didn't matter that his father had already confessed.  That is irresponsible to drag thousands of innocents to kill other innocents for the benefit of one man who already confessed to a crime.

Both Robb and Jon are children. It's worth remembering that. Yes he was "broken" about his father, but also he never declared himself king. His bannermen did that, and the strength of feeling meant it's possible he couldn't just hand his crown over. We don't know for sure because his attempts of alliances never got of the ground. Renly was killed and stannis already considered him a traitor. At that point though he wasn't "dragging men to war". Not in the war your post makes out he is. He made mistakes most kids would have.

Robb never broke a vow when he slept with Jayne. You could argue he broke one when he married her but even then betrothals can be broken. The big fallout was losing allies that were bound by a promise but it wasn't a sacred vow like the night's watch is.

Jon didn't "break" his Night's watch vow in the same way, Much like Jamiee he decided one vow (defending the realms of men) was the most important. The reader should know he is right. He just didn't have the ability to explain that they needed to work together with the wildlings to beat the others. The whole idea of being politically neutral is nonsense though since those against him were only worried about helping stanniss because they thought he would lose. Even if you think attacking winterfell was breaking it... he never got there. At best there's an intention to do so.

In both cases they are young men who aren't even classed as adults in world. The fact Jon, at 14, could join the night's watch is kind of ridiculous anyway in my opinion but there it is.

Edited by DarkLord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Robb was crushing Tywin until a alliance with the Reach and the Stormlords was made... a alliance that Tywin had no part in the making.

Robb crushed 2 out 3 Lannisters army, took control over the Riverlands and scorched the Westerlands, all while Tywin was sitting in waiting or getting beat by Edmure.

 If Tywin was alone against Robb he would end the campaing embarassed.

Tywin's hypeis unreal, i don't know about any other character that benefited from other's actions as much as the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, frenin said:

Tywin's hypeis unreal, i don't know about any other character that benefited from other's actions as much as the man.

Yeah, he is a PR genius that does not live up to the hype but gets the benefits of it anyway because others belive in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find no meaningful difference between the two.  Killed men (Karstark, Slynt) they shouldn't have, check.  Betrayed friends and allies (Freys and Night's Watch), check.  Started to spiral down, made really bad decisions (marrying Jeyne, sparing Mance Rayder, involving himself in the Boltons), check.  Robb and Jon were awful leaders.

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

×