Robb vs. Jon

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Battle with strategy involved: Robb

Actual one-on-one swordfighting: Jon

[Toshio.Keepiru]

As for people who say that Robb takes Jon 1v1; it's hard to say because Jon tried to always made it a point to practice against people who were his equal or better when possible.

Iron Emmet for example is widely regarded as one of the best swordsman on the wall and Jon only beat him soundly at practice because a memory of his childhood caused him to go beserk. He trains against people better than him when he can.

As mentioned before Jon had a slight advantage in swords as he mentioned to Benjen early on in GoT. Given Jon's effort to improve in practice and Robb's combat experience the result I would have to say is fairly even odds.

As for more than 1v1 it's said in the story that Robb and Jon were fairly evenly matched at Winterfell and Catelyn didn't take it too well when Jon bested Robb at a particular contest.

Given the above it would mainly fall to who had the strategic and tactical advantage. All things being equal it would likely be a toss up.

[mrunderhill]

Jon was better than Robb when he they were younger, but not much a huge margin. Even though he considers himself the better sword he recalls times Robb got the advantage over him. They both have had more experience since then, but would still give it to Jon.

As for strategy this goes to Robb. Robb has shown greater diversity in his battle plans and won against the odds on many occassions defeating organised and experienced commanders. Jon only had to deal with wildlings, who lacked discipline.

[Chaircat Meow]

In terms of battle strategy it goes Robb > Dany > Jon.

[Olligarchy]

In a single combat with swords I'd vote for Jon since we know he has actually fought with it since start of AGOT.

For an army I'd vote Robb since he has had experience leading men in a pitched battle, Jon hasn't really.

[PrimeRhaegar]

well jon has a valyrian steel blade and is a better fighter so i go for him.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Fighting: Jon.

Battle: not really fair because Jon's not been in the same situation as Robb, though Robb had advisors, he didn't decide things on his own.

[The Bastard of Walton]

I've seen this mentioned in comments before, but felt it could it be explored a bit more depth, and have devised two levels to this.

First, who would in straight up single combat between the Young King in the North and the 998th Lord Commander? For the sake of clarity, we'll say both guys are a their absolute prime in the series, with Robb right before the Red Wedding and Jon right before he's stabbed (even though this isn't chronologically possible), and neither one has their direwolf.

The second level is a contest of strategy. Say Robb and Jon each had command of similar sized armies (maybe 1000 each, with a balanced mix of cavalry, archers, footmen, etc). They meet for battle on an advantage-neutral ground. Which side wins?

I'm tempted to say Jon would win the individual fight, as he's had more time to practice, while Robb would win the battle, as he's got more experience in full campaigns. However, Jon showed himself to be very battle-savy when it came to defending Castle Black, and Robb spent the entire war leading from the front lines.

Thoughts?

Without Direwolves, Robb. With Direwolves Robb

[nothatso]

In terms of battle strategy it goes Robb > Dany > Jon.

As for strategy this goes to Robb. Robb has shown greater diversity in his battle plans and won against the odds on many occassions defeating organised and experienced commanders. Jon only had to deal with wildlings, who lacked discipline.

Battle with strategy involved: Robb

How can you even say one is better than the other in battle strategy when Jon has never been put in a position of comparable command in open battle?

[KJR the PR of TaFW]

i wonder which wolf would win, greywind or ghost?

[Runaway Penguin]

As for strategy this goes to Robb. Robb has shown greater diversity in his battle plans and won against the odds on many occassions defeating organised and experienced commanders. Jon only had to deal with wildlings, who lacked discipline.

On how many occassions?

Whispering Wood: Fine ambush against overconfident and by that time not too smart commander.

Camps: Surprise attack on unprepared enemy

Oxcross: Same, against commander even his relatives took for a fool

Come to think of it, Edmure has better track record for pitched battles vs. enemy main force ;)

One thing that is clear, though: Robb is aggressive, Jon is rather defensve (active defense though). Think Napoleon vs. Wellington. In a set-piece battle, a lot would depend on terrain and circumstances, but Jon would probably try to do a lot of delaying/feints, if possible.

[mrunderhill]

How can you even say one is better than the other in battle strategy when Jon has never been put in a position of comparable command in open battle?

That's the point Robb has been put in the situation and shown to be a brilliant commander. Jon hasn't. Based on what can you argue for Jon? Also as I pointed out when they did lead, Robb defeated experienced disciplined armies, whilst Jon defeating ill disciplined wildlings.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Yup, the 'vs.' part is rather rigged. It would be great to see Jon in an alike situation, or a few of them, so we can truly compare.

[nothatso]

That's the point Robb has been put in the situation and shown to be a brilliant commander. Jon hasn't. Based on what can you argue for Jon? Also as I pointed out when they did lead, Robb defeated experienced disciplined armies, whilst Jon defeating ill disciplined wildlings.

Yet Robb had no experience whatsoever prior to winning his first battle, so that's hardly a valid argument to be used against Jon's strategic capability. You cannot make a comparison, and thus cannot make an assessment of said comparison, when there is nothing to compare on one side.

Certainly Robb had more experience by the time his time was over, and you can say it's better to have that experience than not, but the possibility remains open that the unknown quantity on the other side is better regardless. You can't really tell one way or the other without the lack of evidence.

[mrunderhill]

Yet Robb had no experience whatsoever prior to winning his first battle, so that's hardly a valid argument to be used against Jon's strategic capability. You can't make a comparison when there's nothing to compare on one side.

Robb has done more impressive things than Jon and is regarded by everyone as a great military mind. Jon has commanded his forces and his victory was not as impressive as Rob's many victories. There is something to compare and Robb's is more impressive. We can compare and Robb is more impressive.

[XAssGodX]

Duel : Jon, He was a better swordsman than Robb before leaving Winterfell and continued to train after that (Even though against weak ennemies) and i'm pretty sure he is faster than Robb. Robb went on war but was almost always at war so he didnt really have time to train.

Duel on Horse : Hard choice, but i'd say maybe Robb, spent much more time on horse.

Battle : Maybe Robb, but i'm not sure, he has more experience and proved himself on the battlefield but Jon is A LOT more intelligent than Robb (He is IMHO probably the most intelligent* character for his age) and could maybe think of better plans than him. I'm just not sure about this one but i'll go with Robb.

*By intelligent i don't mean knowledge but more of being wise and making good choices.

[The Storm King]

Robb wins everything

[mrunderhill]

Duel : Jon, He was a better swordsman than Robb before leaving Winterfell and continued to train after that (Even though against weak ennemies) and i'm pretty sure he is faster than Robb. Robb went on war but was almost always at war so he didnt really have time to train.

Duel on Horse : Hard choice, but i'd say maybe Robb, spent much more time on horse.

Battle : Maybe Robb, but i'm not sure, he has more experience and proved himself on the battlefield but Jon is A LOT more intelligent than Robb and could maybe think of better plans than him. I'm just not sure about this one but i'll go with Robb.

Robb was the better lance and if we are to believe Jaime is mostly horsemanship so I imagine Robb would be better on horse too. He also had more experience fighting on horse after they parted.

[nothatso]

Robb has done more impressive things than Jon and is regarded by everyone as a great military mind. Jon has commanded his forces and his victory was not as impressive as Rob's many victories. There is something to compare and Robb's is more impressive. We can compare and Robb is more impressive.

No, there isn't something to compare. The only instance of "battle" command we have with Jon is his shared command with Donal Noye in which he had the advantage of sitting on top of an 800ft high wall that was imposing enough to give an advantage to a few hundred watchmen in their defense against tens of thousands of wildlings. Robb was never in a position of defensive command during a siege battle, and certainly not under such unique circumstances as Jon was. On the other hand Jon was never in command during an open field battle or any type of offensive situation. Not comparable.

I'd also add that we never saw Robb's "impressive" victories through anyone's eyes who took part in them, compared to Jon whose experiences we see first hand.

[Chaircat Meow]

How can you even say one is better than the other in battle strategy when Jon has never been put in a position of comparable command in open battle?

But we do know that Jon is incredibly rash. On receipt of the pink letter he, without thought, decides to commit unreservedly to a campaign against Ramsay, and implies he intends to lose all the advantages of distance and weather by going to Winterfell himself.

Dany, in contrast, displays great cunning and caution in dividing the Yunkish ranks before her assault on their army in SoS. That campaign, indeed, shows a classic case of the old maxim of Sun Tzu, that the greatest victories are those that are won without fighting, and Dany did everything to stack the odds in her favour before she committed.

It's pretty clear she is an incipient genius and Jon, sadly, is not.