Robb or Jon, who's the best leader

[Little Wing]

It really is a tough call but I'd go with Jon. Robb has poor impulse control when compared to Jon. I see Robb as the impulsive one, with the easy smiles, charming, charismatic military leader loved by the men and women who gladly follow him. Jon, on the other hand is the wiser one, with a cool head on his shoulders rather than being impulsive. The silent wolf. He sees much and more, as it's been said from chapter one in AGoT.. A compassionate, intelligent and courageous fighter and leader, as we saw him hold the Wall and make do with almost nothing (those barrels filled with gravel and frozen water were a good idea for instance). Robb's flaw would be his impulsive nature and trusting the wrong people. Jon's would be having people like the Pomegranate and the gang around him and alienating his friends. But Jon's bold ideas and compassion are why I choose him, among other things.

[Twinslayer]

It seems that Ned gave leadership lessons to both Robb and Jon, but he taught them different things.

From A Game of Thrones:

"Know the men who follow you," [Arya] heard [Ned] tell Robb once, "and let them know you. Don't ask your men to die for a stranger." At Winterfell, he always had an extra seat set at his own table, and every day a different man would be asked to join him. One night it would be Vayon Poole, and the talk would be coppers and bread stores and servants .... Another day it maight be Hullen with his endless horse talk, or Septon Chayle from the library, or Jory, or Ser Rodrik, or even Old Nan with her stories."

From A Dance With Dragons:

Grenn: "My lord, will you sup with us? Owen, shove over and make room for Jon."

Jon wanted nothing more. No, he had to tell himself, those days are gone. The realization twisted in his belly like a knife. They had chosen him to rule. The Wall was his, and their lives were his as well. A lord may love the men that he commands, he could hear his lord father saying, but he cannot be a friend to them. One day he may need to sit in judgment on them, or send them forth to die.

"Another day," the lord commander lied.

[Winterfellian]

He sent Val to treat with Tormund which was a worse decision. Robb knew Theon for 10 years while Val was a stranger to Jon. It only worked out because Jon had plot on his side.

Another plot gift argument :rolleyes:

Val wasn't Jon's first and only choice. He first send two parties of seasoned rangers to this same purpose. It was only after the Weeper send him back the heads of one of the parties and he had no news of the second one that he turned to Val at great personal risk. Even though Val and Jon weren't as close as Robb and Theon I don't see how sending her was a worst decision than Robb sending Theon. Is not only because of the outcome but because both Jon and Val understood that Jon's offer meant hope of life and safety for the free folk. It was in Val's and her people best interest as much as in Jon's that she delivered the message to Tormund.

That said, I would follow Jon. They both have very good good qualities thanks to Ned and Cat in Robb's case but I think Jon has a much more progressive way of thinking and is more resourceful, which is what might be needed in the hard times Westeros will be facing now that winter has come.

[David Selig]

Due to the utter irresponsibility, selfishness and idiocy of marrying Jeyne Westerling, I personally consider Robb a bad leader. And let's be honest, his reign was disastrous for his subjects. Not all or even most his fault, of course, but still...

So Jon Snow, though I hate to say it. ;)

It seems that Ned gave leadership lessons to both Robb and Jon, but he taught them different things.

Or it's a retcon by Martin.

[eggs]

Saying that Jon and Val werent as close as Robb and Theon is a massive understatement. Jon was just lucky that Val had honor.

[McStagger]

As far as leadership is concerned, I think it is no contest that it would be Robb. Jon hasn't had the opportunity to command such a large force and lead them into battle the way Robb has.

Poor personal decisions do not necessarily translate to poor leadership.

[Winterfellian]

Saying that Jon and Val werent as close as Robb and Theon is a massive understatement. Jon was just lucky that Val had honor.

And yet you fail to address the other parts of my post.

So Jon Snow, though I hate to say it. ;)

:shocked: Rubbing my eyes to see if am reading correctly. Is this a sign of a possible new apocalypse? And I thought we were all safe now that 2012 has come and go :rofl:

[kingofashes]

Did Jon not have a baby that Val was fond of?

the wildlings were enemies either way and val being hostage wouldnt stop them fighting. Theon being hostage might stop the IB however.

If val doesnt return all Jon has done is gave the wildlings another sword and lost himself a baby sitter.

Plus he admits that he has no other choice. Robb had hundreds of men he could have sent instead of Theon.

Though tbh I didnt think sending Theon was a bad idea at the time either as I kinda liked him. So im just as stupid as Robb :-)

[eggs]

What do you want me to say? Everyone thought that Val might betray Jon including the man himself. He only sent her because he was desperate. Theon on the other hand grew up with Robb, fought beside him, and saved Bran and its not as if Balon ended up making the logical choice.

[Patrek Stark]

I would have no go with Jon Snow. Even though Robb was one of my favourite characters and was the cause of utter depression for days on end. I see Jon as being a bit more hardened then Robb is. Like it was stated above, both of these young `boys`were thrown into a clusterf*ck of a mess and had little time to adapt. I for one reason or another lean towards Jon....even though he is basicly in the Arctic.

[kingofashes]

Jon didn't have a choice to make though. Well, he did, but it was send Val or send no-one.

Robb had loads of men he could have sent (or women his mum a mormont whoever)

I thought Balon was stupid aswel to not side with Robb. But look at the guys past. Start a rebellion with one hous, one set of people who are tiny in terms of population and economy... shit what was he thinking.

[Winter's Prince]

Jon was absolutely right to send Val, and either way he had already proved himself to the Wildings he was a strong leader. He held the Wall against thousands with a garrison of a few hundred. Uses Val to get support of Tormund and other Wildlings, then gives them castles to man, out of courtesy Tormund allows his son to be Jon's hostage, Jon even arranges a marriage between Sigorn and Alys thus giving a wildling a great land and legendary hold. So by far Jon is the best leader. Plus by capturing Val at the Battle of Castle Black, he had unofficially taken her

[ckal]

Robb can rally people around him and support his choices far better than Jon can.

[eggs]

how is protecting a hole in the wall a great feat? all he had to do was drop stuff on them.

and really, how could anyone expect balon to declare war on the world?

[Thendel]

What do you want me to say? Everyone thought that Val might betray Jon including the man himself. He only sent her because he was desperate. Theon on the other hand grew up with Robb, fought beside him, and saved Bran and its not as if Balon ended up making the logical choice.

Only that Val and Theon are vastly different as hostages go in terms of value. Theon is the only remaining son of a man who's rebelled and fought against you once already. Sending him the only leverage you have over him is incredibly risky because you play the only card you have against him, and that's without making sure you'll gain something else in return. Gestures of good faith are nice and all, but it's only really tactically advisable if you can actually afford them. Val, on the other hand, holds little to no authority over the wildlings, and as a hostage, she has no value at all because you can't use her as leverage in any way.

[TinHouse]

Robb.

Jon seems like an idiot to me.

[Twinslayer]

Or it's a retcon by Martin.

It may be a retcon of Ned, but however it came about it illustrates (to me) a major difference between Robb and Jon. Robb spent time with his troops, he let a different bannerman ride with him each day so he could hear their counsel, etc. His followers loved him for it.

Jon was aloof, he made no effort to get his followers to understand what he was planning or why, he just expected blind obedience. Sure, some of his strategy/tactics were inspired, but he never tried to win over the skeptics and he even wound up alienating his own friends.

So I'd go with Robb as the better leader.

[eggs]

Only that Val and Theon are vastly different as hostages go in terms of value. Theon is the only remaining son of a man who's rebelled and fought against you once already. Sending him the only leverage you have over him is incredibly risky because you play the only card you have against him, and that's without making sure you'll gain something else in return. Gestures of good faith are nice and all, but it's only really tactically advisable if you can actually afford them. Val, on the other hand, holds little to no authority over the wildlings, and as a hostage, she has no value at all because you can't use her as leverage in any way.

Thing is, Balon had everything to gain by joining Robb. He could stayed neutral and gained nothing or joined Robb and had all of his ambitions realized. Declaring war on war on everyone was just a stupid, unpredictable move.

[Lady's Secret]

He sent Val to treat with Tormund which was a worse decision. Robb knew Theon for 10 years while Val was a stranger to Jon. It only worked out because Jon had plot on his side.

Val did not have the same value that Theon had. Val isn't a real wildling princess. Holding her captive would not prevent the wildlings from attacking the wall again. Sending her to treat with Tormund was a gamble. But if she never returned, it wouldn't have put the night watch's at risk. Jon would be in trouble personally with Stannis but not his men. Letting Theon go, gave Balon his only son back and removed the only thing that prevented the iron born from attacking the North. They don't even compare in my opinion.

[Winterfellian]

how is protecting a hole in the wall a great feat? all he had to do was drop stuff on them.

and really, how could anyone expect balon to declare war on the world?

First, it wasn't just the defending the hole on the wall. The first attack came from the South at the commmand of the Magnar of Thenn. Jon was crucial to anticipating and repelling this particular attack.

Leaving aside the fact that the garrison at CB during the attack consisted mostly of crippples, old men and boys Mance's host was superior to the NW by thousands. The wildings had the liberty to change fresh levies with every attack, the NW didn't. They were always the same tired sleep deprived men defending every attack. Mance numbers also gave him the advantage to assign tasks as needed. For example, is likely that he always had people fletching arrows and such. In Jon's POV is made clear that every able man was concentrated on defending the wall and no one was taking care of simple things like fletching the arrows that were being spent.

Also, it wasn't as simple as throwing things at them. They had no staircase, only the windcage which can only hold so much weight if they were to carry heavy objects like rocks to a 700ft wall. The NW had no tar or anything like that and as clever as the idea with the barrels full of ice was they only had like 12 of them if am not mistaken and not an inexhaustible supply. So there's clearly more to it than defending the hole.

I would expect a person who knows or understand the Ironborn culture to know that Balon would have balked at the idea of being offered a kingdom instead of paying the iron price for it just as he balked at seeing Theon wearing a golden chain that was bought with gold and not as in the old ways of the Islands. Neither Robb nor Theon understood this because they didn't understood the Ironborn. As illogical as it may seem Balon's decision was pretty consistent with the Ironborn way of thinking.