Robb vs. Jon

[mrunderhill]

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.

It is comparable in the sense we saw both of them lead troops all be it one was defensive and the other offensive. Jon did a good job, but nobody was praising him as a military genius after the battle. Your argumet is a weak one. Robb has shown he is tactical genius up there with the best. The boy never lost a battle. When one person is praised as tactical genius and wins great victory after great victory the other just did a good job, it is not hard to judge who is better.

[Artos Stark]

I would say that Jon would win in single combat. It is said in the books that Jon is better with a sword but Robb is a better lance. I do think that Robb is the better commander though.

[nothatso]

I'm hesitant to engage you in this conversation because my experience in reading your posts leads me to belive you'll never give Jon credit whether he deserves it or not.

However, as to Jon's decision to engage Ramsay, we don't know what he had planned with Tormund in those two missing hours. We don't know what he had planned to do period, besides go to Winterfell. You're taking a lack of information as an opportunity to make your own assumptions as to what was going to happen. If your own subjective assessment is that going to Wintefell to begin with is rash, then that's your prerogative, but I'm hardly inclined to agree with it considering the unknowns that could factor in.

[nothatso]

It is comparable in the sense we saw both of them lead troops all be it one was defensive and the other offensive. Jon did a good job, but nobody was praising him as a military genius after the battle. Your argumet is a weak one. Robb has shown he is tactical genius up there with the best. The boy never lost a battle. When one person is praised as tactical genius and wins great victory after great victory the other just did a good job, it is not hard to judge who is better.

My argument is a weak one? You've been using a lack of evidence as evidence. That is a weak argument. I'm simply saying that you can't effectively make that argument one way or the other. I never argued that Jon is the superior commander.

[Ghost's Shadow]

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.

And Jon was freezing up and limping around...

[Ghost's Shadow]

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.

This thread is about Robb vs. Jon, where on Earth do people keep on getting that blonde from? If you want a 'vs.' for her, create it?

[Chaircat Meow]

I'm hesitant to engage you in this conversation because my experience in reading your posts leads me to belive you'll never give Jon credit whether he deserves it or not.

However, as to Jon's decision to engage Ramsay, we don't know what he had planned with Tormund in those two missing hours. We don't know what he had planned to do period, besides go to Winterfell. You're taking a lack of information as an opportunity to make your own assumptions as to what was going to happen. If your own subjective assessment is that going to Wintefell to begin with is rash, then that's your prerogative, but I'm hardly inclined to agree with it considering the unknowns that could factor in.

What we do know is that Jon plans to attack an army that he thinks defeated Stannis' army; that same army being the one that totally defeated the full wildling army of Mance Rayder, before it was joined by four times its numbers of northmen, when he himself possesses a ragged fraction of Mance's old army.

That's just dumb. And it also irrevocably commits the nw and the wildlings to war with the 'supposedly' victorious Boltons before Jon has made any attempt to ascertain the veracity of Ramsay's claims.

Tbh, I have a hard time seeing Dany doing anything like this, she has a dragon's temper but she has the prudence and caution to set that in the balance.

[mrunderhill]

My argument is a weak one? You're using a lack of evidence as evidence. That is a weak argument. I'm simply saying that you can't effectively make that argument one way or the other. I never argued that Jon is the superior commander.

That is rubbish and you know it. The lack of battles from Jon mean we can not come to a definite conclusion, but we can still come to a conclusion of what we have seen. Robb has shown he is up there with the greatest military commanders in Westeros. He may even be the best. I admit we have limited evidence, but we DO have some evidence and Jon did NOT demonstrate himself to one of the greatest military commanders in Westeros. A small sample cannot give you a certain conclusion, but it still gives you a conclusion. From what we have seen all be it very little, we can only give it to Robb.

[nothatso]

That is rubbish and you know it. The lack of battles from Jon mean we can not come to a definite conclusion, but we can still come to a conclusion of what we have seen. Robb has shown he is up there with the greatest military commanders in Westeros. He may even be the best. I admit we have limited evidence, but we DO have some evidence and Jon did NOT demonstrate himself to one of the greatest military commanders in Westeros. A small sample cannot give you a certain conclusion, but it still gives you a conclusion. From what we have seen all be it very little, we can only give it to Robb.

What is rubbish? Your first response to me said "That's the point Robb has been put in the situation and shown to be a brilliant commander. Jon hasn't.", i.e. you're using the fact that Jon hasn't shown what his strategic capabilities are as evidence that he is an inferior strategic mind to Robb. My point was merely that a lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary in and of itself.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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?

I can only argue based on the precedent I know, so that's what I'm arguing. Robb has demonstrable, empirical skill as a commander, Jon less so. I love them both but that's how it is.

[RedDeadWedding]

"Robb's the better lance but I'm the better sword" (paraphrase from Jon) so Jon in the single combat

[RedDeadWedding]

i wonder which wolf would win, greywind or ghost?

Ghost all dayy sonn

[RenlyIsNotRight]

As a sword fighter: Jon

As a battle commander: Robb

Who I personally like better: Jon

[Dicer]

What we do know is that Jon plans to attack an army that he thinks defeated Stannis' army; that same army being the one that totally defeated the full wildling army of Mance Rayder, before it was joined by four times its numbers of northmen, when he himself possesses a ragged fraction of Mance's old army.

Would not Jon have the element of surprise and would not his knowledge of the area be a big advantage if he does mount an attack on WF? In Stannis case, Stannis took the wildlings by surprise while Mance was focussed on Castle Black. That's a big advantage. We see that while Stannis and his men are struggling to reach WF, the sturdier Northmen have an easier time. I would assume the Wildlings are even more used to harsher conditions than Northmen south of the Wall. Jon helped Stannis plan his attack on WF in the first place, which indicates that he knows strategy.

Jon spends two hours with Tormund planning the basics of their attack. We don't what those plans are or how Jon designed his attack. It's premature to judge the plan based on nothing.

Tbh, I have a hard time seeing Dany doing anything like this, she has a dragon's temper but she has the prudence and caution to set that in the balance.

Why do you keep bringing up Dany in a Jon Vs Robb thread? I get the feeling that you are trying to rile up the masses. Dany has made plenty of idiotic decisions. But this is not the place to discuss that, so I will leave it alone.

[Minstral]

There is evidence that shows Jon as decent strategist. His musing on the Magnars actions during the battle of Castle Black shows a decent understanding of the need of surprise and how it could have been achieved to some extent. not to mention that he had a good grasp on what needed to be done in order to turn the tables in the favor of Stannis during his Northern campaign.

What we do know is that Jon plans to attack an army that he thinks defeated Stannis' army; that same army being the one that totally defeated the full wildling army of Mance Rayder, before it was joined by four times its numbers of northmen, when he himself possesses a ragged fraction of Mance's old army.

That's just dumb. And it also irrevocably commits the nw and the wildlings to war with the 'supposedly' victorious Boltons before Jon has made any attempt to ascertain the veracity of Ramsay's claims.

Tbh, I have a hard time seeing Dany doing anything like this, she has a dragon's temper but she has the prudence and caution to set that in the balance.

An army that supposedly took casualties during "seven days of battle". Victorias over an army that took the main Wilding camp by surprise, which admittedly would not have worked had Stannis not been able to do so. Though, yes still a pretty damn rash decision and borderline stupid.

At any rate....

From what we see Jon is a bit like Garlan Tyrell of the North when it comes to keeping silent about his thoughts and his skill with the sword. As I recall Jon was beginning to practice against 3vs1 so as to train the new recruits and temper his sword abilities. He also keeps his mouth shut about the latent folly of some of the queens men, though I would argue that he probably should not have tolerated all of those fools.

...I can't really decide between either Robb or Jon to be honest, basically will have to consider and come back to it.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Tbh, I have a hard time seeing Dany doing anything like this, she has a dragon's temper but she has the prudence and caution to set that in the balance.

LOL good one Bran

.....

Wait you're serious?

:leaving:

[Cersei of the Kingsguard]

Strange i always see Jon getting beat up by everyone he meets on the way sure he was doing great job defending castle black but it was Stannis that won it .

Mance beat the living hell out of Jon as far as i remeber and the fights Snow won were against recruits of NW.

Jon is far from his prime if he is indeed AA his strengt has to at least tripple .

so yes in 1 vs 1 im not sure who would win becouse Robb never fights 1vs 1 but in battle jon snow would loose

ghost vs gray wind = Ghost 100% - Ghost just like Summer has to be strong becouse of their owners

(remeber Jojen Reed comparing strenght of Summer > Shaggy Dog)

[Toshio.Keepiru]

.

Mance beat the living hell out of Jon as far as i remeber and the fights Snow won were against recruits of NW.

Jon is far from his prime if he is indeed AA his strengt has to at least tripple .

Actually Jon makes it a point to practice against stronger opponents. Iron Emmet is one of the better fighters on the Wall and Jon only soundly beats him cause of rage inducing memory.

Mance beat Jon when Jon wasn't mad additionally there was a reach disparity due to the weapons used that would not have existed if Jon was using Longclaw (which would have negated much of the reach advantage that Mance gained from using a greatsword) instead of a regular longsword.

Angry Jon vs. Mance more of an even fight.

[Dicer]

Plus, Mance was under a glamor. Jon kept getting confused because of the size difference between what he was fighting and what was actually there.

[Runaway Penguin]

As for the "march on Winterfell", one thing is a rousing speech to get Wildling volunteers, another is what was actually planned. By leading a 500-strong "recon in force" composed of Wildlings, Jon would have:

1. decent force for unorthodox tactics (sneaking, ambushes, hit-and-run)

2. Plausible deniability (hey, it's the Wildlings, not NW)

3. Ability to gather intelligence on enemy moves (as opposed to just sitting at the Wall)

4. Ability to whittle down enemy if Ramsay was indeed heading to Wall

5. Ability to gather whatever survivors of Stannis army

6. Plus in extremis ability to take Winterfell - same way as Wildling raiders got over the wall: Sneaky, under cover of night ad weather, over the walls...

We don't know what of this did Jon plan to do, but it would very mach suit withboth NW and Wildling style of combat.