Jon's poor battle record

[Haskelltier]

Quote

One of the themes that I think Martin stressed in his books is that people behave in complex and confusing ways and often display shades of grey.  Because D&D are writing for tv and because they seem to aim low, I think this is their idea of applying complexity to the characters they are now in charge of.

I don't think you can give a character complexity by letting them do questionable things. Especially when the character was known to act relatively smart.

But, okay, when characters act stupidly, then please confront them with the consequences of their actions. In session 1 Ned got captured and killed, because he trusted the wrong person (Littlefinger) and gave away important informations (he warned Cersei). Ned wore no plot armor and so he was killed. This is one point where GoT differs from a lot of other fantasy series/movies. Everybody can die from the good heroes to the evil villains, there was no plot armor, characters act and have to suffer the consequences. And where are we now? Madman Jaime charges Drogon, the likely consequence would have been that Jaime would be burned to ashes. But Bronn rescued him in the last second by throwing him into a river. Jaime was unconscious and sank to the ground of the river while wearing heavy plate armor, so now it would be very likely that he simply drowns to death. But what do the showrunners say to death? Not today. In the next scene he appears in 1 km distance to the battlefield at the surface of the river with Bronn, who apparently dragged him all the way under water (or else they should have been spotted by somebody). This kills excitement and makes this whole situation ridiculous like a really bad movie.

The same is true for the wight hunt. Would Cersei sent her army to the Wall when Daenerys shows her a wight? Probably not. So why should anybody want to take the high risk to capture one? But okay, 7 madmen wanted to test their luck. And o wonder, only one of the seven was killed (and o wonder, it wasn't a main character or favorite of the viewers).

Quote

In some cases, we should probably give thanks for plot armor or all our favorite characters would be dead and it would be boobs and battles and over the top Euron.

I hate plot armor because the heroes apparently can do very stupid things and they will come out unharmed. No surprises, no excitement. I can have that in every average to bad (fantasy) series.

Quote

How come? The nightwacth had the wall, the gate, they had CB. You have a very strange idea of losing. The future was not looking very bright, but they won the previous day of fighting without the slightest doubt.

Mance could have simply sent several groups of climbers to different places along the Wal and let them climb up to the top. Jon had not enough men to prevent that at least one of these groups would have been successful. The successful group then simply walks along the top of the Wall to Castle Black and kills all remaining black brothers on the top of the Wall. Then Mance's giants and mammoths could have easily destroyed the gates. After that the wildlings can simply storm Castle Black since there are only a dozen or so black brothers left.

[no_one_...]

34 minutes ago, Illiterati said:

Nope.  In my estimation, without Stannis, they were all dead.  That's the very definition of a deus ex machina.

I disagree.  While the Wildlngs would have gotten past the Wall one way or another, Mance didn't want unneeded bloodshed on any side, he may well have taken prisoners/hostages and/or recruited any who would surrender.

Regarding the OP, Jon wins in that he survives no win situations.  

-He won the fight at Casters vs the Mutineers. (omitted by OP and his 1st Battle iirc)

-At the Wall his Commander ignored his advice for personal reasons, but still Jon took the lead the won the fight.  He even was willing to sacrifice himself after in order to try and stave off the Wildling threat.

-At Hardhome, he wasn't going there to fight, but organized a resistance that saved many lives if he hand't have come to save them.

-In the Battle of the Bastards, Sansa was the main reason so many died b/c she never told Jon about the Vale army.  

-The latest was just bad righting used to find an excuse to get Danny up north and a Dragon killed.   Back in Season one the Dead at Castle Black wasn't raised directly by a Wight.   No reason to think they'd need to randomly wander North of the Wall to get a zombie as proof if needed. 

 

[Monster_Under_the_Bed]

5 minutes ago, no_one_... said:

Regarding the OP, Jon wins in that he survives no win situations.  

He doesn't really win, but he does everything possible to do so, which makes him a good leader in my book. The problem is that he is put in unwinnable situations, mostly through no fault of his own, over and over, so he has to be bailed out by near-miraculous events. By all accounts he should be dead now, not just once (like he was), but ten times over. This is a big issue with how GoT plot has been written for a while now. It's become much more like a typical Hollywood movie (last second escapes, deus ex machinas) than in the beginning. The big draw of the show was that characters acted in an internally consistent manner and there was no need to put them in contrived danger. It was enough that bad choices, like Robb Stark deciding to spurn a Frey girl and marry Talisa, had terrible consequences for those characters.

[Super Mario]

This is a bit of a flawed argument. The battle at Castle Black, Jon was outnumbered 100 to 1. Hardhomme was only a negotiation til the ambush from the White Walkers. The beyond the wall fight was never meant to be a battle either, just a kidnapping. The only proper battle Jon had where he could actually strategize was the Battle of the Bastards and even then not only was he vastly outnumbered, his opponent also had a castle. Throw in the fact that Sansa withheld info about the Vale and Jon didn't even know what his assets were for his planning. Yes he got suckered by Ramsay on the Rickon thing, but other than that, he's either done well under the circumstances or found himself in a battle that wasn't supposed to be.

[Infeth]

Why do I read people calling Sansa Sandra?... 

[Rant and Rave]

All these are Pyrrhic victories for his opponents. Mance was not going to get through the wall and lost much more men. In the end, Mance was not able to get through the wall and lost for it. 

Even without the vale, Jon despite having half the troops was able to pretty much make it even till the end. Realistically speaking, there aren't a lot of historic battles where winning side won despite having 1/2 the men. Those battles are normally remembered because it's not easy to accomplish. Hannibal Barca, Julius Ceasar, Alexander.. comes to mind

Hardhome, he went there to get the wilding outs. He managed to many out (10k+). He managed to kill a white walker. He somewhat accomplished his goal and dealt a major blow to the enemy by killing the WW. 

Beyond the wall. His goal was not to kill the white walkers. It was to gather evidence of the undead and white walkers. He managed to already convince Dany, gather evidence for the upcoming meeting with Cersei. I'd consider this a win if they didn't lose the Dragon. With that said, by losing the dragon, i consider it a Pyrrhic victory. Without this, he risked losing Dany's support and not even  having 2 Dragon (which he has now)

 

 

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

if anything, Jon's record is not that bad. People try to spin it by pretend his goal was to kill the enemy when in fact, his mostly accomplished his goal on every battle. His biggest loses was the dragon

[Rant and Rave]

5 minutes ago, Infeth said:

Why do I read people calling Sansa Sandra?... 

Stupid iPhone always auto corrects it 

[Cas Stark]

7 minutes ago, Infeth said:

Why do I read people calling Sansa Sandra?... 

It's a long story.  I call her "Sandra Bolton" to show that she is very far from her book character in the show.

[Nowy Tends]

11 minutes ago, Infeth said:

Why do I read people calling Sansa Sandra?... 

That's an ± old joke dating from the first meeting with Lyanna Mormont in Bear Island; Lyanna mistakenly calls Sansa "Lady Sandra" when she reminds her her marriages with a Lannister and a Bolton…

[Barbrey Dustin]

21 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

It's obvious at this point that Jon is not a good battle field commander.  Let's take a look at his record.

• Castle Black.  Jon lost that battle.  Mance Rayder was about to win until Stannis Baratheon came along and pulled Jon's bacon out of the fire. 
• Winterfell.  Jon lost this battle to Ramsay.  Ramsay was proven the better battle commander.  He bested Jon on the  battlefield.  Littlefinger came to his rescue and bailed him out.  It's thanks to Littleinger that Jon still has his skin.
• Beyond the Wall.  Jon was losing the battle against the wights.  Dany and Her dragons came to the rescue and got them out. 

Jon is not good at anything except swinging a sword.  I don't see a place for Jon after the war with the Night's King is won.  Dany is much better at ruling and at leading than Jon.  She should have the iron throne.  A heroic death while taking down the Night's King would be a fitting way for Jon to die. 

Jon is ranger material and he could have been good in that position.  He's not good at ruling, leading a lot of people, politics, and strategy.  He is good at building small relationships with a small group of men but he is not king material.  Samwell rigged that election!  I mean, the officer overseeing the election was a blind man for crying out loud.

Jon is pretty slow to catch on but I am confident he will recognize Dany's superior abilities in the areas of ruling and strategy and he will step aside and not press his claims to rule.  Dany being a generous monarch will likely concede the north's independence.  After all, if she did the same for the Iron heads she could do the same for the North if Sansa proves herself capable.  Which is out of character for book Sansa but the show version is purely the character creation of the script writers.

[Barbrey Dustin]

3 hours ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

This was debated last season to all ends but why are people still acting like Jon is an ass for breaking rank to save his brother? I mean most people would do that or do something in that situation. I understand the logic behind not doing something for his brother but come on.

 

It may be fine for a civilian to lose his head like that and put his brother ahead of the battle strategy and discipline but it most certainly is not ok for an officer, commander, or general to do. 

[Kytheros]

3 hours ago, Barbrey Dustin said:

It may be fine for a civilian to lose his head like that and put his brother ahead of the battle strategy and discipline but it most certainly is not ok for an officer, commander, or general to do. 

While true, Jon can't not at least try to save Rickon. The attempt must be made - there's no option there, both on a personal level (it's his baby brother) and on the political level (Rickon's top of the order of succession, the last known surviving trueborn son of Ned Stark). Jon screws up after Rickon dies by doing a solo charge - no question about it. On the other hand, in the books, at least, Jon's got anger issues and a streak of berserker in him, so it's not totally implausible that he'd loose his head after seeing Rickon die right in front of him when Jon thought he could save Rickon. Also, Plot Induced Stupidity, in order to make things happen in order to get the specific scene/visual that Dam&Dave want to have, no matter how they get there.

 

 

 

Look, Plot Induced Stupidity is rampant in the TV show whenever Dan&Dave go off-book. Especially when Dan&Dave decide that there's a specific scene or visual they want to have happen. They'll force it to happen, no matter how getting there screws with everything that's previously been established. Remember wondering what happened to "The North Remembers" back in Season 6? All the difficulties involved in getting the Northern Lords to back them against Ramsay? Whereas in the books, pretty much the entire North is willing to take suicide missions to get rid of the Boltons and get a Stark back in charge of Winterfell and the North.

 

According to the books, prior to leaving Winterfell, Jon and Robb had essentially identical educations, including command training. Jon should be at least reasonably competent, both as a ruler and as a general. For that matter, back in Season 6 Jon should've known how many men (roughly) each Northern House could muster, the way he does in the books. Oh, sure, when it comes to political matters, their education is specialized on the North's version, and on more general matters, they're going to know more about the North than other regions - ie, they could/should be able to pull significant amounts of detail about Northern Houses off the top of their heads, but they shouldn't be expected to have the same familiarity and depth when it comes to say, Dorne or the Reach, and the more obscure Houses there.

[watcher of the night]

8 hours ago, Illiterati said:

You don't know that there were no scouts that were overrun by the hoarde.  They had cavalry, they had no time to mount it.  They barely had time to scramble a shield wall.

i) You did not answer half the questions.

ii) Who's fault it was that the "cavalry had not time to mount" (for which we have no evidence).

iii) If you take the show at face value the "best general in westeros" was defeated by a 18 yr old girl. Purely based on what we saw it is insane to argue that Tarly is "military strategist of any worth".

[watcher of the night]

8 hours ago, Illiterati said:

Nope.  In my estimation, without Stannis, they were all dead.  That's the very definition of a deus ex machina.

Would it be that difficult to admit that Jon and co. won the first day?

Are you really arguing that Jon is a bad general because Stannis arrived it time? How is this Jon's fault? Again, this is insane.

Sorry but it appears to me that you just hate on Jon; you already made up your mind that Jon is bad general saved by DeM at all occasions; no amount of evidence and rational discussion will changed that perception. It became (or was from the start) a pointless discussion, have good day.

[watcher of the night]

2 hours ago, Kytheros said:

Plot Induced Stupidity, in order to make things happen in order to get the specific scene/visual that Dam&Dave want to have, no matter how they get there.

Look, Plot Induced Stupidity is rampant in the TV show whenever Dan&Dave go off-book. Especially when Dan&Dave decide that there's a specific scene or visual they want to have happen. They'll force it to happen, no matter how getting there screws with everything that's previously been established.

This, so much this.

[plastic throne]

7 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

i) You did not answer half the questions.

ii) Who's fault it was that the "cavalry had not time to mount" (for which we have no evidence).

iii) If you take the show at face value the "best general in westeros" was defeated by a 18 yr old girl. Purely based on what we saw it is insane to argue that Tarly is "military strategist of any worth".

It is "insane to argue that tarly is a military strategist of any worth", yet Tarly (unlike Jon), at least has some wins on his account. He is the only one who bested Robert on the field of battle for example. But yea, sure - Jon is better but can you point us to one good battle decision he made? Still waiting, all you can say/type is how it is not his fault because numbers. Which always was number one excuse of bad generals. I do agree though, show Danny is the best general there is (and that bothers me).

Also, you did not answer any of my points either, just accused me of being 'anti jon' and 'calling people names' then went to hiding, it's kinda hypocritical to go around reminding people of that. Tarly's biggest mistake was not setting up scouts (or perhaps he had and were killed, as we can see dragons CAN fly around 500mph, surely horses can'tmatch that? We'll see - see if Bryenne makes it to KL to be there for the meeting), Jon's mistake was to completely discard all battle plans and solo charge the enemy, pulling all your people into a kill zone. Compare those two, really. Do it. Because if you can conclude Tarly is not "military strategist of any worth" on that, I can't imagine what will you say for Jon's mistakes, especially BoB.

 

11 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

Would it be that difficult to admit that Jon and co. won the first day?

Are you really arguing that Jon is a bad general because Stannis arrived it time? How is this Jon's fault? Again, this is insane.

Sorry but it appears to me that you just hate on Jon; you already made up your mind that Jon is bad general saved by DeM at all occasions; no amount of evidence and rational discussion will changed that perception. It became (or was from the start) a pointless discussion, have good day.

First of all, Jon was not in command of the battle there, he was ordered to watch the wall, even if they won (which they haven't because it was a siege and siege lasts for days, years) - it would be sir Allister's win. I can agree though, he showed potential there. Which later went out of the window on every occasion with BoB truly standing out for his idiocy. Now I don't care about drama, I want consequences for their actions, like he's not fit to lead these people.

Sorry but it appears to me that you just love Jon and are really blinded or shall I say oblivious to any criticism. Which is ok, but you don't even address criticism, you ignore it or go into pure denial mode. Like, go as far as to deny him being saved by DeM on numerous occasions? Lol, just in the latest episode there are like 3 of those (Danny to the rescue, drowning, Benjen). Then there is BoB (like 5 times), Mance, Hardhome,...

[plastic throne]

12 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

This, so much this.

Yes, that so much - I agree and I did rant about that. But if D&D make their characters look stupid - then they are stupid in that universe. And we want consequences for their actions, just like it was with Robb, etc. This is why this show was different from the others. But not anymore.

We can't pretend it didn't happen, it did.

[Kytheros]

1 hour ago, plastic throne said:

Yes, that so much - I agree and I did rant about that. But if D&D make their characters look stupid - then they are stupid in that universe. And we want consequences for their actions, just like it was with Robb, etc. This is why this show was different from the others. But not anymore.

We can't pretend it didn't happen, it did.

There's usually a degree of difference between Plot Induced Stupidity and Character Induced Stupidity. The former happens for plot reasons, and violates normal character behavior - and can usually be treated as an outlier in assessing a character. The latter is inherent to the character, even when it's irrelevant to plot.

Unfortunately, Dan&Dave are slapping certain characters with so much PIS of late, it's ending up looking more like CIS.

[Sir Dingleberry]

14 hours ago, Barbrey Dustin said:

It may be fine for a civilian to lose his head like that and put his brother ahead of the battle strategy and discipline but it most certainly is not ok for an officer, commander, or general to do. 

Ya but probably 95% of people would make the same decision.

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:12 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

It's obvious at this point that Jon is not a good battle field commander.  Let's take a look at his record.

• Castle Black.  Jon lost that battle.  Mance Rayder was about to win until Stannis Baratheon came along and pulled Jon's bacon out of the fire. 
• Winterfell.  Jon lost this battle to Ramsay.  Ramsay was proven the better battle commander.  He bested Jon on the  battlefield.  Littlefinger came to his rescue and bailed him out.  It's thanks to Littleinger that Jon still has his skin.
• Beyond the Wall.  Jon was losing the battle against the wights.  Dany and Her dragons came to the rescue and got them out. 

Jon is not good at anything except swinging a sword.  I don't see a place for Jon after the war with the Night's King is won.  Dany is much better at ruling and at leading than Jon.  She should have the iron throne.  A heroic death while taking down the Night's King would be a fitting way for Jon to die. 

You're right in everything you wrote.  I think even someone like Jon will see that he's not the best person to rule Westeros.  He's a simple man with usually good intentions but he's not the equal of Dany.  I doubt anybody is.  A heroic death fits Jon.  Although that is more likely to happen in the books.  Books vs. Show, the endings will be different, IMO.