Jump to content
Nagini's Neville

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

They have similar goals, though. Robb wants vengeance and secession and what not, and Doran wants only vengeance, but they are basically in the same position when things start, yet Doran doesn't even bother involving himself in an all-out war while

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

He had a chance of winning some battles and making his peace with the new ruler on the Iron Throne, but getting through with his new kingdom half of which was the heartland of the Seven Kingdoms, would have been impossible. Even if he had been some Alexander the Great guy, he couldn't have been able to keep that unless he had taken over the Iron Throne - which wasn't his goal. Even if he had thrown back his enemies in a massive amount of super victories, they would have come back a couple years later. They could simply not give up the Riverlands - and in the end they would also not give up the North.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Shae would have been much better off with some minor knight as husband. And Tyrion himself, too.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

I think he shows some promise, actually. He is pretty smart, he knows how to make friends, and he can read people up to a point.

His problem is that he doesn't want to rule - yet he had the best opportunity to set himself up as a pretty good ruler. He was the best friend of the king, he made him Hand, he had a solid power base back home - if he had not tried to uncover some murder plot but had rather done his best to push his people in crucial offices at court he could have very quickly become a very strong power at court - and since Robert wanted him to continue as regent after his death that would have been easily accomplished then.

Ned's problem is that he doesn't really want to be in KL, and that he actually allows himself to get distracted by that. He wants to stage a coup to be able to go home, not to seize power...

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Ned's loyalty goes to his king, not some abstraction - yes, Cersei cuckolding Robert was treason, but Ned was not her judge on that matter. He could not be, especially not after he himself helped her to cover her tracks by not telling Robert. The idea that Ned is somehow more obliged to ensure a proper and correct succession than actually telling the truth to Robert is not convincing to me. Robert wanted Joffrey to succeed that - so if can't tell the truth to him, why try to tell it to the public when this must mean war?

This strange insistence that the legal son has to be also the biological son no matter what seems uncharacteristic for Ned. Sure, magical royal bloodline and all - but Ned also raises his nephew as his son, he is able to differentiate. Robert's children may not be his seed, but they grew up with him as their legal father. Why open that can of worms?

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Stannis doesn't just lack DNA proof, he also has, to our knowledge, no proof that Cersei and Jaime actually are a couple, or that Cersei ever had an affair during her marriage. So far as we know he just as the looks of the children in comparison to Robert's bastards. That's essentially nothing. Yet he goes to war over this and intends to kill both Cersei and her children - even if he were only their step-uncle that's still a very ugly thing to do. It doesn't get better just because he is accidentally right.

[Not to mention that Stannis is even more guilty since he refused to tell Robert or Ned about his suspicions and thus shares a considerable share of the blame for their death.]

8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Jon is better raw material for a leadership role than Robb (he is smarter and more perceptive). His problem is that he was not cut out for his job as a black brother, much less than the Lord Commander. He should have not taken the black - or at least taken it later in life when he had realized that this was truly what he wanted to do.

He has a certain tendency to make solitary decisions and not explain his reasoning much or at all (e.g. him banishing Grenn and Pyp without ever explaining himself, him striking a deal with the Iron Bank and not telling anyone) that do cause problems for him.

8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Oh, there are so many layers to this. Even if we say Robb should have started a war, he did not have to take that many men - or he could have handed command to somebody else, as Catelyn told him after her return.

Robb does not model himself very much after the Young Dragon - he is modelled after him by the author, too. He is a bright young man who has his successes but then makes some crucial mistakes and fails.

What makes his failure much worse is the fact that the North is the kingdom closest to the Wall - if Doran Martell had ruined Dorne in an attempt to avenge his sister or brother it wouldn't matter so much for Westeros at large - but the weakness of the North is going to cost them quite dearly in the future. And while we cannot say Robb must have known what he could not have known - he could have known enough (and maybe did know enough, at least about the growing wildling threat and the rumors about the Others. Some letters much have reached him somehow, after all.

8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

See above. There are differences there. Doran Martell cares more about than others. Some other effectively neutral Stormlords might do, too. The Hightowers as well.

And the rationale behind the brutal methods of Tywin and Stannis (betrayal; sorcery) is to get what you want by reducing the necessary bloodshed. That might be ugly and betrayal, but in the end it benefits the subjects of the rulers of those people in the sense that they have to live through (or risk to die in) a prolonged war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 11:37 AM, 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.

Robb is cool headed.  For a Stark.  He was more thoughtful and deliberate.  In the end they both lacked the internal strength of character to do what needed doing.  I can agree with that.  Both were lacking.  Jon was always prickly.  Jon and Arya took after Lyanna.  Reckless and emotional.  

Share this post


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

They have similar goals, though. Robb wants vengeance and secession and what not, and Doran wants only vengeance, but they are basically in the same position when things start, yet Doran doesn't even bother involving himself in an all-out war

Yeah, I understand that. But Doran still hasn't reached his goal either. All I'm getting at is that while we know Robb's way didn't work, we don't know yet if Doran's is better or not, because it hasn't come to frutition.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Shae would have been much better off with some minor knight as husband. And Tyrion himself, too.

Yeah probably. She could have ended up with someone who abused her though & a minor knight definitely wouldn't have given her the lavish life style Tyrion did, that seemed to enjoy so much. Tyrion definitely would have been better off. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think he shows some promise, actually. He is pretty smart, he knows how to make friends, and he can read people up to a point.

I agree he is smart & can read people. He seems to be able to make friends in the North as the lot of them seem to think him honorable. He doesn't do so well making friends in KL though & I just don't think he has what it takes to be a true "game player" It was in his power & mental capacity to play things better than he did but he was never going to out manuver people like Varys or LF. 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

His problem is that he doesn't want to rule - yet he had the best opportunity to set himself up as a pretty good ruler. He was the best friend of the king, he made him Hand, he had a solid power base back home - if he had not tried to uncover some murder plot but had rather done his best to push his people in crucial offices at court he could have very quickly become a very strong power at court - and since Robert wanted him to continue as regent after his death that would have been easily accomplished then.

Yeah absolutely. I think it would have been very hard to be Ned though & not try to follow the bread crumbs to figure out Jon Arryn's murder though. He could have done both but I think the murder plot being uncovered was always going to lead to the discovery of the children not being Roberts. I think his best bet would have been to make nice at court, put key people in key positions, investigate the murder plot. NOT tell Cersei about his discovery but go straight to Robert. I think he would have probably survived KL had he done that. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned's loyalty goes to his king, not some abstraction - yes, Cersei cuckolding Robert was treason, but Ned was not her judge on that matter.

But then who was? I wold say it is the duty of anyone who finds out to do something about it. By doing something about it though, I mean bring the matter to light. Not to Cersei, but to Robert. AFTER he already didn't do that - he already brought it to Cersei first, already let Robert die without telling him, it did become his duty IMO. 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He could not be, especially not after he himself helped her to cover her tracks by not telling Robert. The idea that Ned is somehow more obliged to ensure a proper and correct succession than actually telling the truth to Robert is not convincing to me. Robert wanted Joffrey to succeed that - so if can't tell the truth to him, why try to tell it to the public when this must mean war?

No I don't think he is more obliged to ensure a proper succession than to tell Robert the truth, I'm just saying after Robert died & Ned hadn't told him the truth he did bear some responsibility to set things right. He was willing to tell the public because telling the public didn't hurt Robert on his death bed. He didn't want to tell his friend this awful thing with what would be the last words he said to him. Had things worked out the way Ned thought it needn't bring war. The war happened when things didn't work out the way Ned intended them to.

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This strange insistence that the legal son has to be also the biological son no matter what seems uncharacteristic for Ned. Sure, magical royal bloodline and all - but Ned also raises his nephew as his son, he is able to differentiate. Robert's children may not be his seed, but they grew up with him as their legal father. Why open that can of worms?

I'm only speculating & trying to put myself in Ned's shoes but I think it was probably a number of things. Ned is ok with raising his nephew as his son because it is saving his nephews life & his nephew is not put in a position to become heir to anything solely for being called his son. With the lie about Joffrey he is being made heir to something, the biggest something - the Iron Throne. That being said Ned may have felt different if he saw Robert in Joffrey - not his looks of course, but his mannerisms, his character etc. Joffrey being the monstrous little thing he is likely had much & more to do with Ned wanting to right the succession. 

 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis doesn't just lack DNA proof, he also has, to our knowledge, no proof that Cersei and Jaime actually are a couple, or that Cersei ever had an affair during her marriage. So far as we know he just as the looks of the children in comparison to Robert's bastards. That's essentially nothing. Yet he goes to war over this and intends to kill both Cersei and her children - even if he were only their step-uncle that's still a very ugly thing to do. It doesn't get better just because he is accidentally right.

Right, well that's what I'm saying, it's a hard thing for me to wrap my mind around. It doesn't make him good because he is accidentally right but it does potentially make the situation better because he is accidentally right. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon is better raw material for a leadership role than Robb (he is smarter and more perceptive). His problem is that he was not cut out for his job as a black brother, much less than the Lord Commander. He should have not taken the black - or at least taken it later in life when he had realized that this was truly what he wanted to do.

I can agree with most of that. He definitely wasn't cut out to be a black brother & thus not cut out to be LC but I do think he could potentially do a lot of good in a position of leadership. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He has a certain tendency to make solitary decisions and not explain his reasoning much or at all (e.g. him banishing Grenn and Pyp without ever explaining himself, him striking a deal with the Iron Bank and not telling anyone) that do cause problems for him.

And this is his biggest flaw IMO. If he would use his big boy words & explain himself sometimes he could save himself a whole lot of trouble. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, there are so many layers to this. Even if we say Robb should have started a war, he did not have to take that many men - or he could have handed command to somebody else, as Catelyn told him after her return.

Robb does not model himself very much after the Young Dragon - he is modelled after him by the author, too. He is a bright young man who has his successes but then makes some crucial mistakes and fails.

What makes his failure much worse is the fact that the North is the kingdom closest to the Wall - if Doran Martell had ruined Dorne in an attempt to avenge his sister or brother it wouldn't matter so much for Westeros at large - but the weakness of the North is going to cost them quite dearly in the future. And while we cannot say Robb must have known what he could not have known - he could have known enough (and maybe did know enough, at least about the growing wildling threat and the rumors about the Others. Some letters much have reached him somehow, after all.

Yeah, I agree the biggest tragedy is that the North is left essentially undefended & Winter is coming. He might have known but I'm willing to cut him some slack considering we don't hear about him knowing & I think he's paid his price 10 fold. 

 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. There are differences there. Doran Martell cares more about than others. Some other effectively neutral Stormlords might do, too. The Hightowers as well.

And the rationale behind the brutal methods of Tywin and Stannis (betrayal; sorcery) is to get what you want by reducing the necessary bloodshed. That might be ugly and betrayal, but in the end it benefits the subjects of the rulers of those people in the sense that they have to live through (or risk to die in) a prolonged war.

Sure, some lords care more than others definitely. While Tywin's methods do save some lives of the small folk I don't think this was his main motive. I don't think he cares much about them, he just cares about getting done what he needs done, as quickly & effeciently as possible. If that included slaughtering lots of small folk he wouldn't shy away from it. He sends Gregor to terrorize the land to achieve his goal. Stannis is more questionable. I think the fact that killing one boy could potentially save other's lives is appealing to him but I also think if innocents were to die for him to reach his goal he would call it the cost of war. I certainly don't think he would lose much sleep over it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 8:15 PM, Nagini's Neville said:

Robb and Jon always sort of felt like the same person to me. Just like young versions of Ned. Before you get mad at me, I know it's probably a very subjective feeling. I fully acknowledge, that I'm not an expert, when it comes to Robb and Jon. I haven't spent that much time analyzing their characters/personalities yet. And it's not that easy for me to relate to them. But I'm looking forward to  maybe change that. I'm currently on a reread and I'm trying to understand them better! Traits that stuck out to me so far about Jon are that he is observant and in his head more than Robb in the beginning of the story. But I guess, that could also be because of their different upbringings/status and their roles in WF.

They are the same people.  They serve the same purpose.  They illustrate the reasons why the best laid plans go very badly because of a lack of internal discipline within the person making the decision.  Jon and Robb are case studies for the failure of leadership.  While they both possess some talents for fighting battles, they both also possess fatal flaws that make them unsuitable for leadership.  They both failed the test of leadership. 

All Robb had to do was honor an oath to Walder Frey.  But he was too concerned with looks.  He was worried the Frey bride will not have a pleasant appearance.  In other words, his future Frey bride was not going to be pretty.  He rebelled against his own oaths and chose the attractive girl over the unknown girl whom he thought would be ugly.  

Jon had a harder test than Robb, but it was still a test that most of the boys at the wall have had to face and passed.  The readers should not be swayed by Jon's support group who claim that it was an impossible test to pass.  It was not.  Most of the boys and men on that wall had to leave loved ones behind when they took the black.  Those same loved ones left behind were put in peril by wars, famine, epidemics, wildling attacks, etc.  The boys still stayed at the wall.  It must not have been easy but they stayed.  They put all of that behind them and dedicated themselves to the watch.  They kept out of the kingdom's business and stayed neutral.  Jon could not.  

Quote

Some questions:

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon? In which situations, you think, Jon would have acted/reacted differently than Robb, if he'd been in the same situation and vice versa? (Maybe Red Wedding and also Jeyne)

Same decisions.  Where it may differ is how they handled the reconciliation with the Freys.  Robb was more diplomatic and bit his tongue.  Jon would have been more aggressive towards Lothar.  Lothar still wins because the lame guy will adjust his reaction to aggression in such a way that he gets what he wants.  I cannot imagine Jon apologizing to Walder Frey even when the Starks are wrong.  Robb is more socially graceful, Jon is more animal like, less polished.  Jon is tone deaf to the concerns of those he doesn't like.  But it is possible his more primal nature might have kept him from trusting Walder.  

Quote

In which situations would they have acted definitely the same? What makes both of them different from Ned? ( Imo Robb might be more revenge-driven/emotional and Jon is more suspicious )

Ned's youth is still an unknown.  He would be worst than they were if he knowingly participated in his father's plot to unseat Aerys.  Revenge-driven?  Jon is the more so than Robb.  Do you remember what Jon did to Janos Slynt?  That was revenge.  

Quote

If Robb or Jon are your favorite characters, why? Which traits, behavior, situations makes you like them so much? ( please, don't shy away from getting detailed :))

Robb was just an idiot.  I never liked Jon.  That boy is dark inside.  He is a bag of angry emotions waiting to burst out.  It came out when he killed Janos.  

Quote

For the men: Can you relate to Jon and Robb?(Why?) From your experience do you think they are accurate/realistic depictions of boys/ men their age? Or does their appeal lie more in, that one would aspire to be like them, since they are so honorable?  (Robb feels more realistic to me, because he makes some serious "teenage boy" mistakes, while Jon always felt a bit to much Gary Stu for me) (For the women, if you can relate to Jon and Robb, please answer as well :) )

 

I do not find either character appealing.  Honorable?  Good lord, they are the opposite of honorable.  Dishonorable is more like it.  That's why their own men gave them a dishonorable discharge from duty.  

Edited by Widowmaker 811

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are the same people.  They serve the same purpose.  They illustrate the reasons why the best laid plans go very badly because of a lack of internal discipline within the person making the decision.  Jon and Robb are case studies for the failure of leadership.  While they both possess some talents for fighting battles, they both also possess fatal flaws that make them unsuitable for leadership.  They both failed the test of leadership. 

All Robb had to do was honor an oath to Walder Frey.  But he was too concerned with looks.  He was worried the Frey bride will not have a pleasant appearance.  In other words, his future Frey bride was not going to be pretty.  He rebelled against his own oaths and chose the attractive girl over the unknown girl whom he thought would be ugly.  

Jon had a harder test than Robb, but it was still a test that most of the boys at the wall have had to face and passed.  The readers should not be swayed by Jon's support group who claim that it was an impossible test to pass.  It was not.  Most of the boys and men on that wall had to leave loved ones behind when they took the black.  Those same loved ones left behind were put in peril by wars, famine, epidemics, wildling attacks, etc.  The boys still stayed at the wall.  It must not have been easy but they stayed.  They put all of that behind them and dedicated themselves to the watch.  They kept out of the kingdom's business and stayed neutral.  Jon could not.  

Same decisions.  Where it may differ is how they handled the reconciliation with the Freys.  Robb was more diplomatic and bit his tongue.  Jon would have been more aggressive towards Lothar.  Lothar still wins because the lame guy will adjust his reaction to aggression in such a way that he gets what he wants.  I cannot imagine Jon apologizing to Walder Frey even when the Starks are wrong.  Robb is more socially graceful, Jon is more animal like, less polished.  Jon is tone deaf to the concerns of those he doesn't like.  But it is possible his more primal nature might have kept him from trusting Walder.  

Ned's youth is still an unknown.  He would be worst than they were if he knowingly participated in his father's plot to unseat Aerys.  Revenge-driven?  Jon is the more so than Robb.  Do you remember what Jon did to Janos Slynt?  That was revenge.  

Robb was just an idiot.  I never liked Jon.  That boy is dark inside.  He is a bag of angry emotions waiting to burst out.  It came out when he killed Janos.  

I do not find either character appealing.  Honorable?  Good lord, they are the opposite of honorable.  Dishonorable is more like it.  That's why their own men gave them a dishonorable discharge from duty.  

Precisely  :agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are the same people.  They serve the same purpose.  They illustrate the reasons why the best laid plans go very badly because of a lack of internal discipline within the person making the decision.  Jon and Robb are case studies for the failure of leadership.  While they both possess some talents for fighting battles, they both also possess fatal flaws that make them unsuitable for leadership.  They both failed the test of leadership. 

All Robb had to do was honor an oath to Walder Frey.  But he was too concerned with looks.  He was worried the Frey bride will not have a pleasant appearance.  In other words, his future Frey bride was not going to be pretty.  He rebelled against his own oaths and chose the attractive girl over the unknown girl whom he thought would be ugly.  

Jon had a harder test than Robb, but it was still a test that most of the boys at the wall have had to face and passed.  The readers should not be swayed by Jon's support group who claim that it was an impossible test to pass.  It was not.  Most of the boys and men on that wall had to leave loved ones behind when they took the black.  Those same loved ones left behind were put in peril by wars, famine, epidemics, wildling attacks, etc.  The boys still stayed at the wall.  It must not have been easy but they stayed.  They put all of that behind them and dedicated themselves to the watch.  They kept out of the kingdom's business and stayed neutral.  Jon could not.  

Same decisions.  Where it may differ is how they handled the reconciliation with the Freys.  Robb was more diplomatic and bit his tongue.  Jon would have been more aggressive towards Lothar.  Lothar still wins because the lame guy will adjust his reaction to aggression in such a way that he gets what he wants.  I cannot imagine Jon apologizing to Walder Frey even when the Starks are wrong.  Robb is more socially graceful, Jon is more animal like, less polished.  Jon is tone deaf to the concerns of those he doesn't like.  But it is possible his more primal nature might have kept him from trusting Walder.  

Ned's youth is still an unknown.  He would be worst than they were if he knowingly participated in his father's plot to unseat Aerys.  Revenge-driven?  Jon is the more so than Robb.  Do you remember what Jon did to Janos Slynt?  That was revenge.  

Robb was just an idiot.  I never liked Jon.  That boy is dark inside.  He is a bag of angry emotions waiting to burst out.  It came out when he killed Janos.  

I do not find either character appealing.  Honorable?  Good lord, they are the opposite of honorable.  Dishonorable is more like it.  That's why their own men gave them a dishonorable discharge from duty.  

I've never heard a bigger bunch of nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 4:50 PM, Arthur Peres said:

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.

He tried and he failed. He needed to have tried harder. Ned had a lot of friends in the vale. Even if lysa ignored him he should have persuaded some vale lords to join him. He should have formed some aliance with one of the baratheons until the lannisters were defeated. He should have sent someone to balon to negotiate his support in Exchange to deliver theon back to him...

On 11/4/2019 at 3:47 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

 

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. 

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. 

 

You are forgeting that robb didn t march against the lannisters. He marched against the king of the 7 kingdoms. As long as some kingdoms joined joffrey robb wouldn t stand a chance. 

And what I am saying is that while robb could defend the north with only support from the north if he wanted to march against KL he needed allies. And he could have used his new Independence and success in defending the north against the king as a bargaining chip to get his sisters back.

When he captured Jaime he could have traded him for his sisters and go back to his kingdom and be king. His desire to kill joffrey and to keep his men happy stopped him. 

By becoming KitN robb lost all possible aliances he could have made with the baratheon's that at the time were also tywin enemies. When they are declaring him king robb could have said no and decided to join 1 of the baratheons and accept him as king of the 7 kingdoms. He wouldn t be responsable for the fate of the riverlands anymore and that would give him more liberty to return north whenever he wanted….

What robb failed to understand is that by accepting to be kitN and attacking KL he needed allies that recognised his kingship and wanted to attack KL. He can t just be indeferent to who is the new king… He was playing the game of thrones and thought he could win it alone...

Edited by divica

Share this post


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

He tried and he failed. He needed to have tried harder. Ned had a lot of friends in the vale. Even if lysa ignored him he should have persuaded some vale lords to join him. He should have formed some aliance with one of the baratheons until the lannisters were defeated. He should have sent someone to balon to negotiate his support in Exchange to deliver theon back to him...

It doesn't matter, it wouldn't work as let clear to the reader.

No Vale lord would disobey Lysa and fight for Robb when she can just close the bloodygate in their faces later on, and the same can be said about Robert and Joffrey. 

Balon was set in invading the North, delivering Theon would be seeing by any other lord as show of goodfaith, LF did the same when he was sent to make the Tyrell alliance and delivered the Redwyne twins.

There is no alliance to make. 

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter, it wouldn't work as let clear to the reader.

No Vale lord would disobey Lysa and fight for Robb when she can just close the bloodygate in their faces later on, and the same can be said about Robert and Joffrey. 

Balon was set in invading the North, delivering Theon would be seeing by any other lord as show of goodfaith, LF did the same when he was sent to make the Tyrell alliance and delivered the Redwyne twins.

There is no alliance to make. 

He could have offered edmure or one of his siblings in marriage… He had a lot of bargaining chips… Even if he didn t gain 20k or more soldiers in one move he could have gained it with several aliances...

And anyone that knew anything about balon should know that he shouldn t send theon… We are talking about sending someone that knows almost everything about the north to someone that hates the north… And even if balon wanted to attack the north if robb ofered him a better target and the chance to get his son back he might accept… The problema is that robb sent theon in Exchange of nothing...

And the tyrells didn t hate the lannisters like balon hates the starks...

Share this post


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

He tried and he failed. He needed to have tried harder. Ned had a lot of friends in the vale. Even if lysa ignored him he should have persuaded some vale lords to join him. He should have formed some aliance with one of the baratheons until the lannisters were defeated. He should have sent someone to balon to negotiate his support in Exchange to deliver theon back to him...

And the prisoners of the Skycell should try not to die when they hear the sky call...

No one but the Riverlands were helping him.

 

29 minutes ago, divica said:

You are forgeting that robb didn t march against the lannisters. He marched against the king of the 7 kingdoms. As long as some kingdoms joined joffrey robb wouldn t stand a chance

When Robb took the crown. The Lannisters were alone, why would he need allies to march to KL again??

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, divica said:

 And anyone that knew anything about balon should know that he shouldn t send theon… We are talking about sending someone that knows almost everything about the north to someone that hates the north… And even if balon wanted to attack the north if robb ofered him a better target and the chance to get his son back he might accept… The problema is that robb sent theon in Exchange of nothing...

 

Balon had every rational reason to side with Robb, they are both rebel separatists, trying to break free from the IT, Robb is Theon's best friend, and is willing to reconize Balon's own kingship and help him sack the Westerlands, the richest region in the realm. Without hindsight I would make the same decision, and with hindsight we know that Balon would attack him even if Theon was a hostage.

Balon was the one not being rational here, and nothing would make him change his mind... he was dumb enough to pray for the death of his last son and clear heir, left a messed sucession when he died and is berated by his daughter, son, vassals, subjects and enemies alike, as bad lord, incapable of ruling, mad, blind and deaf.

 

Share this post


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

You are forgeting that robb didn t march against the lannisters. He marched against the king of the 7 kingdoms. As long as some kingdoms joined joffrey robb wouldn t stand a chance. 

No, I'm not forgetting. The King of the 7 kingdoms is a Lannister & "some" kingdoms supporting Joffrey most certainly would not mean Robb didn't stand a chance.

1 hour ago, divica said:

And what I am saying is that while robb could defend the north with only support from the north if he wanted to march against KL he needed allies. And he could have used his new Independence and success in defending the north against the king as a bargaining chip to get his sisters back.

But what would he bargain with? That wasn't what you were saying at first anyway. You specifically said he could use Jaime to bargain. If he had not marched to battle he would not have Jaime to bargain with. He cannot use his independence & success in the north to get his sisters back unless he says "ok now that I've successfully made the North independent from the other kingdoms, I will now bend the knee & rejoin them if you will give me my sisters back." You think his men would have had a hay day if he traded Jaime for his sisters? Imagine what they would have done had he traded the North's independence for his sisters. 

 

1 hour ago, divica said:

When he captured Jaime he could have traded him for his sisters and go back to his kingdom and be king. His desire to kill joffrey and to keep his men happy stopped him.

He has to keep his men happy or he will have no men. His desire to kill Joffrey kept him from going back to the North & staying there, yes. 

 

1 hour ago, divica said:

By becoming KitN robb lost all possible aliances he could have made with the baratheon's that at the time were also tywin enemies.

Not at all. He never had any possible alliances with the Baratheons. Stannis never would have allied with Robb, & Renly was dead.

 

1 hour ago, divica said:

When they are declaring him king robb could have said no and decided to join 1 of the baratheons and accept him as king of the 7 kingdoms. He wouldn t be responsable for the fate of the riverlands anymore and that would give him more liberty to return north whenever he wanted….

No, there is no chance he could have said no & expected to keep his men loyal to him. His men are screaming they want independence from the 7K & Robb to be their king. He would have lost every northerner he had. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 1:46 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are the same people.  They serve the same purpose.  They illustrate the reasons why the best laid plans go very badly because of a lack of internal discipline within the person making the decision.  Jon and Robb are case studies for the failure of leadership.  While they both possess some talents for fighting battles, they both also possess fatal flaws that make them unsuitable for leadership.  They both failed the test of leadership. 

All Robb had to do was honor an oath to Walder Frey.  But he was too concerned with looks.  He was worried the Frey bride will not have a pleasant appearance.  In other words, his future Frey bride was not going to be pretty.  He rebelled against his own oaths and chose the attractive girl over the unknown girl whom he thought would be ugly.  

Jon had a harder test than Robb, but it was still a test that most of the boys at the wall have had to face and passed.  The readers should not be swayed by Jon's support group who claim that it was an impossible test to pass.  It was not.  Most of the boys and men on that wall had to leave loved ones behind when they took the black.  Those same loved ones left behind were put in peril by wars, famine, epidemics, wildling attacks, etc.  The boys still stayed at the wall.  It must not have been easy but they stayed.  They put all of that behind them and dedicated themselves to the watch.  They kept out of the kingdom's business and stayed neutral.  Jon could not.  

Same decisions.  Where it may differ is how they handled the reconciliation with the Freys.  Robb was more diplomatic and bit his tongue.  Jon would have been more aggressive towards Lothar.  Lothar still wins because the lame guy will adjust his reaction to aggression in such a way that he gets what he wants.  I cannot imagine Jon apologizing to Walder Frey even when the Starks are wrong.  Robb is more socially graceful, Jon is more animal like, less polished.  Jon is tone deaf to the concerns of those he doesn't like.  But it is possible his more primal nature might have kept him from trusting Walder.  

Ned's youth is still an unknown.  He would be worst than they were if he knowingly participated in his father's plot to unseat Aerys.  Revenge-driven?  Jon is the more so than Robb.  Do you remember what Jon did to Janos Slynt?  That was revenge.  

Robb was just an idiot.  I never liked Jon.  That boy is dark inside.  He is a bag of angry emotions waiting to burst out.  It came out when he killed Janos.  

I do not find either character appealing.  Honorable?  Good lord, they are the opposite of honorable.  Dishonorable is more like it.  That's why their own men gave them a dishonorable discharge from duty.  

Pretty comprehensive observation of Jon and Robb.  They were regular young men who got put into positions of leadership and proved poor fit for the role.  Robb could have been a suitable northern lord but he was not king material.  Jon would have fine being a man-at-arms under Robb, but he is unsuited for leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not put into their positions.  They chose or accepted.  And they chose to betray the duties of their positions for love. 

Martin himself believes humans are more alike and not different at all.  He also prepared us for the poor judgment to come.  Robb worried about the appearance of his bride at a time when they were facing war.  Jon already tried to desert the watch before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

They were not put into their positions. 

They were kind of "put" into their positions. Not so much Jon (although his options were limited) but more so Robb. He didn't do anything to bring about his sudden role of Lord & man of the castle. 

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

They chose or accepted.

Again, Jon chose (his options were limited but he still chose to join the NW) but he didn't choose to be LC, he accepted the position but is there any precedence for not accepting it? Maybe, but most people that don't want to be LC just don't put their name up for grabs. Jon didn't put his name up for grabs.  Robb accepted his role but what else could he have done? Said yeah, I know I'm my father's heir but no thanks? 

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

And they chose to betray the duties of their positions for love. 

This is pretty subjective I think. Robb in particular didn't betray his position, he betrayed Walder Frey. Whether or not Jon betrayed anything I think is arguable. I can think of a lot worse reasons to betray something than for love though & while Robb made his decision based on the honor of Jeyne & his love for her, I think Jon's decision to march on WF had much more to do with anger than love. 

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Martin himself believes humans are more alike and not different at all.

I've never heard this. Got a quote? I'm not saying he didn't say it but would interested in the context it was said in. Humans are alike in many ways but are different in just as many. It seems an odd thing to say for someone who has built his livelihood on writing different characters, who make different decisions, have different moral values, etc.

At any rate I'm not sure what this comment adds to this discussion. Whether he said it or not doesn't seem to have much bearing on this other than to say "Yes Jon & Robb are exactly alike" Which they clearly are not.

 

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

He also prepared us for the poor judgment to come

What exactly was poor judgment in your opinion? I'll agree they have both made some not so great decisions but am interested in knowing what decisions you think were bad vs those that you think were good.

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Robb worried about the appearance of his bride at a time when they were facing war. 

Here is what Robb said when he found out he was to marry a Frey:

"And you are to wed one of his daughters, once the fighting is done," she finished. "His lordship has graciously consented to allow you to choose whichever girl you prefer. He has a number he thinks might be suitable."

To his credit, Robb did not flinch. "I see."

"Do you consent?"

"Can I refuse?"

"Not if you wish to cross."

"I consent," Robb said solemnly. 

 

Where exactly does he fret over his bride to be's face? 

In all fairness I believe I recall Robb making a comment about what his Frey wife may look like but when I searched for it, I couldn't find it. 

At any rate it is well established that Robb's reasons for not keeping to his betrothal had nothing to do with what his potential Frey wife looked like. 

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Jon already tried to desert the watch before.

So? My Grandpa used to tell me "Close only counts in horseshoes & hand grenades."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robb had no issues with the looks of his Frey bride. Lord Walder allowed him to pick the one who suited him best, both from his daughters and granddaughters, and Walder has both good-looking and not-so-good-looking female descendants.

He also does not want to get out the marriage deal with the Freys, he just feels he has to marry Jeyne and doesn't realize how big a deal it is to break a marriage contract - especially with Walder Frey who felt (rightfully) slighted by his liege and many other great houses for decades.

The haughty Starks honoring him with a marriage contract was greatly stroking Walder's ego - but Robb breaking dealt him a very deep wound.

It was stupidity and self-involvement on Robb's part that caused him to fail to see what he had done. He, now a king, thought everybody would see things his way just because he wished it so - but they did not.

In Jon's case the fact that he was pushed into the role of Lord Commander by his scheming friend and a maester also has to be considered. He is pissed that he has to fulfill that office now - he did not want to do that. And that's part of the reason why he later lashes out at his friends, sending them all away.

Jon has considerable self-worth problems - he would do much better in profession/office he actually wanted to have rather than in something others picked for him - and up to this point he never had made any proper plans for himself. Many people use him for their own plans - Mormont, Qhorin, Ygritte, Sam, Stannis, etc. and while he often inspires other people, being forced into a role you don't want is not necessarily a way to excellence, much less happiness.

Share this post


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

The haughty Starks honoring him with a marriage contract was greatly stroking Walder's ego - but Robb breaking dealt him a very deep wound.

Poor put-upon Walker Frey. :rolleyes:

Robb married another woman from a similarly ranked no-name House, just like Walder’s, so I wouldn’t exactly call Robb “haughty.” 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was stupidity and self-involvement on Robb's part that caused him to fail to see what he had done. He, now a king, thought everybody would see things his way just because he wished it so - but they did not.

He knew he made a mistake. You don’t need a POV to see that he’s trying to put a brave face on what he knows is a grievous error, otherwise he wouldn’t have tried to fix it. His mistake is similar to Jon’s in that they let their guard down and didn’t read the malice behind the smiles.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 10:46 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

The boys still stayed at the wall.  It must not have been easy but they stayed.  They put all of that behind them and dedicated themselves to the watch.  They kept out of the kingdom's business and stayed neutral.  Jon could not.  

Oh please like there weren’t people deserting every week. Mormont says it’s a constant thing. And the “neutrality” of the Watch meant starvation and no arms to fight even if they could, because they would be depending on Ramsay Bolton for aid. I’m sure that would have worked out swimmingly. The Watch needs to do something radical because the status quo is Marsh vs. the Others. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Poor put-upon Walker Frey. :rolleyes:

Robb married another woman from a similarly ranked no-name House, just like Walder’s, so I wouldn’t exactly call Robb “haughty.” 

The Freys are not a no-name house. They are one of the most powerful houses in the Riverlands, who, insofar as wealth and military power is concerned, dwarfed their liege lords, the Tullys, at least around the time of the Dance (and I don't think that changed in the years between, although it may have).

The Westerlings are a joke by comparison.

Yet they were treated like garbage, at least in the mind of Lord Walder (who certainly was exceptionally prickly and easily insulted), by most of the greater houses.

The Starks had good and loyal friends in the Freys after they met their demands, yet Robb essentially decided to fuck them very hard because of some little whim of his. Didn't his mother hammer home the fact how prickly they were? How powerful and how important it was too keep them sweet?

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

He knew he made a mistake. You don’t need a POV to see that he’s trying to put a brave face on what he knows is a grievous error, otherwise he wouldn’t have tried to fix it. His mistake is similar to Jon’s in that they let their guard down and didn’t read the malice behind the smiles.

He eventually understands what he did, but not back at the Crag. There he thinks he can just apologize to the Freys present or offer amends that do not involvement the removal of Jeyne Westerling - which is a ridiculous approach.

He only tries 'to fix' his error because without the Freys 'the King Who Lost the North' cannot even try to get home. Apologizing to the Freys is only on his agenda when he needs them again, not when he doesn't need them.

Lord Walder's malice and bad temper jumps you in the face when you so much as talk to him - to believe such a man, a man who could have married a daughter or granddaughter to a king only to be thwarted by the basic lust of a young boy who must marry the first girl he deflowers would be satisfied by the kind of apology the Freys give him is just utter stupidity. Not just because the grievous wounds they dealt him, but also because the poor position the Starks are in overall. How could they have believed the Freys would still want to be on their side at this point? They had already lost the war.

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

×