Is Jon Snow fit to command?

[Tygett Lannister]

15 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

Jon is the blood of Ned Stark, raised in Winterfell and will be the great uniter the north needs after Stannis and the Boltons fight for control below the wall  

Than it comes the Jesus part where he destroys zombie army right?

I think he is not fit to be Lord Commander as @Lord Varys explained. He is a good human being but that doesn't makes him a good Commander. His best decision being letting Wildlings pass the wall and send people to rescue others.

[divica]

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We see that he wasn't fit for command, mostly due to his age and the issues he has with himself and his lot in life, in small instances. He rises to high too quickly, failing to understand that the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch isn't a king or a lord. He is the head of a military order whose politics and decisions won't be realized when he hasn't the allegiance and support of his own officers (and a majority of his own men) which Jon most definitely lacks.

As a compromise candidate, he has no power base of his own, and he erodes that even further by sending away his closest friends and allies (Aemon, Samwell, Pyp, Grenn, Edd, etc.).

His youth makes it rather difficult for him to establish himself as a universally accepted leader, and his demeanor (residing in the armory, not running around with a retinue of bodyguards, etc.) makes him both vulnerable to attack and look unimpressive.

He also rose too high to quickly. We see that when his arrogance takes the better of him, ignoring the advice of his officers and failing to see that their resentment and opposition could have dire consequences for him. He also provokes the establishment of the Watch unduly by make a whore like Satin his steward and squire and naming a creature like Leathers the new master-at-arms at Castle Black. Those men may have been good men, but Jon isn't living in a meritocracy. You don't give a whore or peasant the office usually reserved for a knight or ranger - or the potential successor of the Lord Commander. And if you feel you can only trust such people your power base is simply not existent.

But then - Jon had other, better men for those jobs. Iron Emmett and Eddison Tollett were good at what they did, men in high standing among the men of the Watch. 

Not to mention striking a deal with Iron Bank but apparently not telling anyone about that.

A man actually suited to command would have realized that he first has to secure his power in his own order and crush all potential opposition there before he could go about implementing radical changes. He set a very promising example with Janos Slynt. But then he dropped the ball. The way to continue would have been to make the others understand that anyone contemplating treason and disobedience would suffer a similar fate. In addition, having officers that second-guess and oppose pretty much all your decisions are simply of no use. You need people who support you and your decisions and whose criticism or objections - if they are uttered - are constructive not destructive. You have to know that those men will do what you tell them to do wholeheartedly after the final decision is made.

Marsh and Yarwyck (and Clydas, too) should have been the first to be replaced by men Jon knew he could trust. The important offices have to be in the hands of men who are your men, not people who (might) oppose you.

I think you are fundamentally wrong in many things.

First, the NW is a mostly a meritocracy with few positions being traditionally held by nobles. So it isn t strange to have common people having high positions in the NW. Even jon keeping bowen marsh and co. in their positions makes sense. Jon is preparing for a war! He needs competent men in their posts. It isn t the time to train men in new positions unless he absolutly needs to. While you and probably most of the NW are thinking that jon has years to prepare for the ww he is acting like they can attack at any moment and everything has to be done as fast as possible. So he doesn t have time to worry about the politcs of the watch and put people he trusts in importante places. He needs people that know what to do in their position.

Then the NW isn t a sellswords company. Once they ellect their LC they have to obey him (or if there is a legal way of making him renounce his position use it). The can t just act against their LC if they don t like his orders. And as the watch has several lands (the gift and the castles at the Wall) the LC is more akin to a lord or king in those lands than a millitary leader. Where have you seen a millatary leader worrying about planting lands?

But I agree that after taking several decisions if his officers were always against him he should have put other people in their places.

[divica]

11 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Than it comes the Jesus part where he destroys zombie army right?

I think he is not fit to be Lord Commander as @Lord Varys explained. He is a good human being but that doesn't makes him a good Commander. His best decision being letting Wildlings pass the wall and send people to rescue others.

So what do you think he sould have done about manning the other castles? and who should have him sent to be responsible for each castle?

The deal with the iron bank? the marriage between allys and the thern? And several small decisions he took?

I think it is better to say that his worst actions were not being able to make people of the NW to agree to his vision or gather more support.

[Dorian Martell's son]

19 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Than it comes the Jesus part where he destroys zombie army right?

This is an epic fantasy series 

20 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

I think he is not fit to be Lord Commander as @Lord Varys explained. He is a good human being but that doesn't makes him a good Commander. His best decision being letting Wildlings pass the wall and send people to rescue others.

As commander of the watch, he is just the first leader to deal with everything coming south. other leaders will have to make choices like his very soon 

[zandru]

8 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

29 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Than it comes the Jesus part where he destroys zombie army right?

This is an epic fantasy series 

Well yes, but it's written by George RR Martin, not some wretched hack who puts warrior women in chainmail bikinis. George RR has used fantastic elements (dragons, magic, people rising from the dead, etc) sparingly and as crucial plot elements, not as deux ex machina (I hope I have the plural right). That's why I also feel that the whole Azor Ahai business has been overblown by (some) fans.

I've got to weigh in in Jon's competence and actually brilliance in commanding the Night's Watch, for reasons many others have already cited. But that's never stopped the fools or the deluded, like Bowen Marsh et al, and that's why Jon is (as far as we know) now dead.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, divica said:

I think you are fundamentally wrong in many things.

First, the NW is a mostly a meritocracy with few positions being traditionally held by nobles. So it isn t strange to have common people having high positions in the NW.

Nope, there is no indication that former wildlings and whores ever rose to high office in the Watch. Royal and noble bastards do, and commoners also can have more prominent positions than they usually have outside the Watch, but we see no commoner (i.e. man with only a single name) command one of the orders of the Watch or one of the castles.

The idea that only Leathers and Satin were available for the positions Jon gave them is pretty much insane. He made a choice there, a choice he did not have to make. It was either a deliberate provocation or stupidity.

If you are a Lord Commander and you feel you need the officers you are not really getting along with the best policy is to provoke and anger them only when you have to - not when you don't have to. And Jon didn't have to give Satin or Leathers the position he gave them.

9 minutes ago, divica said:

Even jon keeping bowen marsh and co. in their positions makes sense. Jon is preparing for a war! He needs competent men in their posts. It isn t the time to train men in new positions unless he absolutly needs to.

Nobody said anything about training new men (although Jon chose to do that, anyway, by deciding to send Sam to Oldtown to become a maester) - it could have been enough to dismiss Marsh, Yarwyck, and Clydas and give their position to new men of Jon's choosing. Men who would then have to thank Lord Commander Snow for their appointments, making them potentially more loyal than their predecessors were. There should be some stewards in the NW capable of replacing Marsh as Lord Steward. And the same goes for Yarwyck and Clydas. Control of the access to the rookery and the ravens is key for any Lord Commander.

Marsh could have still plotted against Jon, of course, but one assumes that a good deal of his power and hold over the men of the Watch came from the fact that he was the Lord Steward. All the stewards are his men due to the office he holds. If he no longer was the Lord Steward many men may have been less willing to follow him.

9 minutes ago, divica said:

While you and probably most of the NW are thinking that jon has years to prepare for the ww he is acting like they can attack at any moment and everything has to be done as fast as possible. So he doesn t have time to worry about the politcs of the watch and put people he trusts in importante places. He needs people that know what to do in their position.

Jon himself thinks the Others are not going to attack any minute. And he is not acting as if he thinks they could attack any minute. If he did think that, he would have never contemplated leading a ranging party to Hardhome or marching against Winterfell.

9 minutes ago, divica said:

Then the NW isn t a sellswords company. Once they ellect their LC they have to obey him (or if there is a legal way of making him renounce his position use it). The can t just act against their LC if they don t like his orders. And as the watch has several lands (the gift and the castles at the Wall) the LC is more akin to a lord or king in those lands than a millitary leader. Where have you seen a millatary leader worrying about planting lands?

You do know that an administration can sabotage the efforts of the head of a government - be he a king, lord, or lord commander - in ways that aren't direct treason or disobedience, right? If you want things to go smoothly and efficiently your officers are your men and on your side. They don't run around and do work to rule, or anything like that. They work with their commander, not against him, and Jon's officers pretty much stood all against him.

9 minutes ago, divica said:

But I agree that after taking several decisions if his officers were always against him he should have put other people in their places.

It is also not that difficult to imagine how things could have gone much better. Send out Marsh on some suicidal ranging mission, say. Or give him command of one of the new castles alongside a man Jon trusts completely, that way Marsh would be separated from his power base among the stewards (aside from those actually being at the castle).

Keep the men you trust close by - Emmett and Edd, say - and give those you begin to trust important duties elsewhere (Leathers and Satin, say).

Jon makes pretty much the same mistakes as Ned did in AGoT. He sent away too many men he could trust, effectively inviting his enemies to attack him. If the entire Stark guard had still been at the Tower of the Hand when Robert died Cersei may not have dared stage her coup. If Emmett and Edd had been at Jon's side in his last chapter, there wouldn't have been an assassination.

And the way he treated Ghost was Robb and Greywind all over again. He really showed his incompetence there. Not to mention the fact that Melisandre pretty much told him repeatedly that men he trusted would try to kill him. That should have given him enough pause to actually think about the men he trusted, and how the hell the Winterfell decision was going to affect them. It is not that hard.

I mean, if I told you that the men Jon trusted might try to kill him what names do spring to mind first? Especially as the story progresses?

And Jon actually has proof that Mel has prophetic powers. She foresaw both the girl on the dying horse and the three eyeless heads. That she thought the girl was Arya doesn't change the fact that she saw a girl on a dying horse coming to Castle Black, right? It was utter stupidity not to take her Melisandre's warning seriously.

[divica]

5 minutes ago, zandru said:

Well yes, but it's written by George RR Martin, not some wretched hack who puts warrior women in chainmail bikinis. George RR has used fantastic elements (dragons, magic, people rising from the dead, etc) sparingly and as crucial plot elements, not as deux ex machina (I hope I have the plural right). That's why I also feel that the whole Azor Ahai business has been overblown by (some) fans.

I wouldn t find strange if the AA ends up being a person that has a good magic ability to kill the ww. I don t think most people think it will be an all powerful character. Just someone capable of killing ww/the great other/the night king or whatever.  

However, with euron's arc in the story I have no idea what might happen in the magic camp side...

[Angel Eyes]

4 minutes ago, divica said:

I wouldn t find strange if the AA ends up being a person that has a good magic ability to kill the ww. I don t think most people think it will be an all powerful character. Just someone capable of killing ww/the great other/the night king or whatever.  

However, with euron's arc in the story I have no idea what might happen in the magic camp side...

No one thinks magic is good. Isn’t there a statement that describes magic as a sword without a hilt? 

Well, if there’s no hilt, wear gloves.

[divica]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that only Leathers and Satin were available for the positions Jon gave them is pretty much insane. He made a choice there, a choice he did not have to make. It was either a deliberate provocation or stupidity.

If you are a Lord Commander and you feel you need the officers you are not really getting along with the best policy is to provoke and anger them only when you have to - not when you don't have to. And Jon didn't have to give Satin or Leathers the position he gave them.

Nobody said anything about training new men (although Jon chose to do that, anyway, by deciding to send Sam to Oldtown to become a maester) - it could have been enough to dismiss Marsh, Yarwyck, and Clydas and give their position to new men of Jon's choosing. Men who would then have to thank Lord Commander Snow for their appointments, making them potentially more loyal than their predecessors were. There should be some stewards in the NW capable of replacing Marsh as Lord Steward. And the same goes for Yarwyck and Clydas. Control of the access to the rookery and the ravens is key for any Lord Commander.

Keep the men you trust close by - Emmett and Edd, say - and give those you begin to trust important duties elsewhere (Leathers and Satin, say).

Jon makes pretty much the same mistakes as Ned did in AGoT. He sent away too many men he could trust, effectively inviting his enemies to attack him. If the entire Stark guard had still been at the Tower of the Hand when Robert died Cersei may not have dared stage her coup. If Emmett and Edd had been at Jon's side in his last chapter, there wouldn't have been an assassination.

And the way he treated Ghost was Robb and Greywind all over again. He really showed his incompetence there. Not to mention the fact that Melisandre pretty much told him repeatedly that men he trusted would try to kill him. That should have given him enough pause to actually think about the men he trusted, and how the hell the Winterfell decision was going to affect them. It is not that hard.

I mean, if I told you that the men Jon trusted might try to kill him what names do spring to mind first? Especially as the story progresses?

And Jon actually has proof that Mel has prophetic powers. She foresaw both the girl on the dying horse and the three eyeless heads. That she thought the girl was Arya doesn't change the fact that she saw a girl on a dying horse coming to Castle Black, right? It was utter stupidity not to take her Melisandre's warning seriously.

Actually you know jon choose edd and emmett for the postions of stwerd and master of arms at first? He wasn t trying to provoque anyone...

He only chose satin and leathers after sending the others away to be responsible for a castle. And as you stated earlier, if those men were men that agreed with his vision and were loyal why would he choose men that bowen marsh would like and that would opose him at every turn? You are contradicting yourself! If jon has to have officers he trust he has to start somewhere.

And you are ignoring the fact that jon must have people he absolutly trusts in control of the other castles. He couldn t keep edd and emmet close by when he needs them most making sure the other castles are loyal and treat the wildlings well. If there are problems in a castle the peace he got with the wildlings might crumble and he as very few men he trusts. It is pretty different from ned that has unlimeted resources but fails to use them wisely. Jon tries to make the most he can whit what he has. If he did as you sugested and kept his friends close and a castle revolted because the man jon sent to be responsable turned out to be disloyal we would be having a discussion about jon's incompetence but for diferent motives.

In addition, he can 't dismiss bowen marsh without having a reason to. In the beginning jon thought bowen wouldn t be the hassle he turned out to be... He only finds outr after a while... and we have no proof that jon likes anyone that is capable of replacing bowen... so maybe is better to stay with the devil you know? but yes, jon maybe should have solved the bowen issue earlier.

The ghost thing for us readers it is stupid. But do not forget that earlier melisandre was able to affect him and now there is other magical being in the castle. It isn t that strange that jon thinks ghost isn t that realiable when magic is at play. And mel never explicitly said he would be betrayed, I think she only says several times "daggers in the night" or something similar. It is a stretch to say he will be attacked by his brothers!

[Traverys]

I tend to reference people who have already made a case that aligns with my own thoughts. He

I try to look at things at a different angle when it comes to stuff like this.

What message is GRRM trying to send to us?

I FINALLY got a friend to read the texts (he's seen all seasons of the show) and so I'm reading with him and discussing when he wants. I don't know how to put it in words exactly at this time, but I see parallels between a man only able to be brave when he's afraid (Eddard to Bran) and a similar idea that oaths are easy to keep until you are tempted to break them (Maester Aemond & Mormont to Jon).

Jon's personal honor, as we all probably realize, is constantly at odds with his oaths. He has fairly good moral character (compared to most other characters) and usually is at a search for how he can best achieve the "right thing to do." He compromises one for the other in little ways. In the end, he alienates a lot of the senior, veteran members of the Night's Watch do to him using wiggle room.

His time as Lord Commander places one temptation after another in front of him. And eventually he does bite down on some. The blog I linked argues that while in ADwD Daenery's moral trials and tribulations are front and center, Jon's aren't explored as directly. " These temptations differ, and while some play into Jon’s more selfish desires, the crueler ones take advantage of Jon’s deep-seated moral impulses — justice, compassion, and love."

• Can Jon “take no part” if it means a monster will win a war against a righteous man?
• If it means his sister will be raped for the rest of her life by the devil incarnate?
• If it means some other young girl will be forcibly married and raped by her uncle?
• And what if “taking part” in any of these means placing the Watch and its larger struggle at great risk?

Of course the Night's Watch would be better off with someone less concerned about morality and more on survival, but GRRM wishes to challenge the reader.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

On December 19, 2017 at 4:57 AM, kissdbyfire said:

It's a matter of opinion, like so much else. I happen to disagree. 

Not sure what connections you are referring to here. For instance, he knows Marsh was plotting w/ Slynt and others and still he keeps Marsh as First Steward b/c he knows Marsh is the right man for the job. That's a decision that was made w/ the Watch's best interest in mind. And no, Jon didn't send his "few loyal companions" away because he still has a lot more men who are loyal to him. He only sent his closest friends away, and that out of necessity - real or imagined. 

And why should he take on a nobleman? But let's say he should have, just for fun... which nobleman currently at CB could he have chosen? Right, there's no one.

On top of that, and even more importantly, why should Jon accommodate Marsh & cronies' prejudices and biases? Satin is a good fighter, has good manners, and can even read and write (after a fashion); that makes him the perfect choice to be the LC's steward.   

 Because he needs to show that he's actually interested in working together with the establishment of the watch. His political position is fragile,he's by no means irreplaceable in their eyes and he can't have them drag their feet out out of defiance. 

Trying to save as many people as he possibly can is his main duty; in fact, protecting the realms of men it's  the NW raison d'être.

Can beyond the wall be considered part the realms of men? Or they the place of all the the things of fairytales? You know, the WW, children of the forest ect ect. Someone pointed out something very peculiar in a previous discussion on Jon's termination.  That technically the NW's oaths don't really much cover humanity in general but specifically the very realms of men and the standard interpretation was it referring to the 7 kingdoms. Now, I'm a little nebulous on the last bit, but if the other side of the wall isn't the domain of those who are not men then why the qualifier of "realms of men" instead of just "men".

but I digress, trying to save everyone isn't the same thing as being able to save as many people you're able to. 

On December 19, 2017 at 4:57 AM, kissdbyfire said:

It's a matter of opinion, like so much else. I happen to disagree. 

Not sure what connections you are referring to here. For instance, he knows Marsh was plotting w/ Slynt

and others and still he keeps Marsh as First Steward b/c he knows Marsh is the right man for the job.  

That's a decision that was made w/ the Watch's best interest in mind.

 

And no, Jon didn't send his "few loyal companions" away because he still has a lot more men who are loyal to him.

A lot? How exactly popular do you think Jon was?  Even after all his massively unpopular decisions?

He only sent his closest friends away, and that out of necessity - real or imagined. 

 

And why should he take on a nobleman? Because, a nobleman's family who tend to act very generous to the watch whose given one of them honor. Even if it's just a noble's bastard( for example Jon)or 3 son (like benjen), it .  The watch survives off of showing nepotism to those of noble stock. But let's say he should have, just for fun... which nobleman currently at CB could he have chosen?

Then make a not so obvious assurance that situation is temporary until a more appropriate alternative is produced. And maybe in this instance show Jon himself very well isn't comfortable with the situation. The "gays are people too" is just common sense true, but in this case won't sooth things over 

Theres always a son whose far back in the line.

Right, there's no one. On top of that, and even more importantly, why should Jon accommodate Marsh & cronies' prejudices and biases? Because his political position is shakey at best due to the already radical plans he's trying to avoid adding needless friction between the two is surely advisable.Satin is a good fighter, has good manners, and can even read and write (after a fashion); that makes him the perfect choice to be the LC's steward.   

Trying to save as many people as he possibly can is his main duty; in fact, protecting the realms of men it's  the NW raison d'être.

So, once again, why should Jon let the free folk die (and come back as wights)? Just b/c Marsh & co are prejudiced arseholes? 

Except for that loan from the IB that Jon negotiated w/ Tycho Nestoris.

 

What are you talking about? There's no show discussion here, and there's no "NK" in the books. 

Huh? 

Why? He sends Mance and the spearwives to rescue a feeling girl. What`s the problem w/ that?

Actually, no. The mutineers had no right to execute their LC. They were wrong, and will pay w/ their lives for their treason.

 

Again, for the third and final time: I don't care how many threads you post this in, it's factually wrong. Jon only decides to go to Winterfell AFTER he receives the letter, therefore Jon going to Winterfell CANNOT be Ramsay's (or whoever's) motivation for writing the letter. Really, it's very very simple and easy to understand. 

So, once again, why should Jon let the free folk die (and come back as wights)? Just b/c Marsh & co are prejudiced arseholes? 

No. But if he wants to continue on this course he knows is extremely controversial, he should make the transition as easy as possible for them to accept. Compromise.  If you're going to allow wildlings in, at least  don't start giving them key positions(while they certainly are qualified), in the brotherhood right out.  It's bad enough they were allowed in the brotherhood in the first place in their mind.  Remember,a short time ago, the wildlings had been they're sworn enemy for thousands of years. They are prejudiced assholes but you sometime need to actually work with prejudiced assholes if you truly want progress to be made. 

 

 

Except for that loan from the IB that Jon negotiated w/ Tycho Nestoris.

 

What are you talking about? There's no show discussion here, and there's no "NK" in the books. 

Huh? 

Why? He sends Mance and the spearwives to rescue a feeling girl. What`s the problem w/ that?

If the Boltons win and find out Jon had anything to do with if  Stannis's is dead he'd be the prime/only suspect for who exactly has her. he and any of the wildlings he's sheltering is going to die. Even if Jon used the excuse he was just proving shelter for a stray and asked Mance to lead her to refuge the obvious questions are A. how would you know where to pick her up? They of course wouldn't buy the excuse of it being just magici B. How would a 11 year old girl escape us with out help from the outside in the first place? And how can Jon not know what Mance would do? Ok 3 questions. 

Actually, no. The mutineers had no right to execute their LC. They were wrong, and will pay w/ their lives for their treason.

What do you think happens if it really is Ramsey? That Jon could very well suceed in his risky plan to take Winterfell? How exactly does play for the watch? Because, if Jon failed(he would), the Boltons are still going to go to castle black to get the last remnants of Stannis's rebellion, only this time they've justification for disbanding the order all together since Jon appears to have tarnished its purpose to defend the realm instead to wage war against it. And quite honestly, Jon's actions from the pov of people who haven't read ASIoF and don't know about the others make his plan look like a simple power play rather than a mere defense. He's stocked up the watch with wildlings and promoted them in key positions, he's executed his political opposition (with enough just cause true but still looks bad in a certian light), has married the heiress to one of the most prestigious houses to a savage, and now he's going to go to winterfell at the head of a wildling army? It looks really bad. Add on to the fact, Jon isn't trying to say Ramsey's accusations are false so in Marsh and co's eyes it's Jon whose commited  treason by using the war crimnal mance to steal the wife of the most powerful family in the north. 

 

Again, for the third and final time: I don't care how many threads you post this in, it's factually wrong. Jon only decides to go to Winterfell AFTER he receives the letter, therefore Jon going to Winterfell CANNOT be Ramsay's (or whoever's) motivation for writing the letter. Really, it's very very simple and easy to understand. 

Did I ever say his plan to the take the fight to winterfell was created before the PL? I've only said the reason the PL was issued in the first place is because Jon's plan to get Arya to safety was foundout.  Or wait, do you think when I was talking about Melisandre's and Jon's plan to get Arya I was talking Jon himself literally going to get her?.  Seriously, if not that I really do fail to see how you saying "Jon only decided to go to winterfell after he was threatened" conflicts with what I said.

 

[Damsel in Distress]

On 12/19/2017 at 4:26 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Look,  I like Jon.

But, so far his tenure as LC has been lacking to say the least.

He got elected through Aemon and Sam playing politics and leaning on the right men to vote(Sam also was the one who counted the votes along with the half-blind Aemon btw), yet when getting in his position he does very little to try actually build up connections within the brotherhood, sending the few loyal companions he had away.

He doesn't even try to smooth over relations a little with the establishment of the watch by simply taking on a nobleman as his steward.

 

He pushes and pushes his radical agenda of allowing the free folk in and allow them to say the vows ok I get that they need men but promoting leathers (whose a great warrior) as master at arms so quickly, is bad call.

He's completely stubborn with any discussion on allowing the wildlings in even though,the actual ability to actually feed them has been stretched to its limits.

I get he doesn't want the NK to have more soldiers, but honestly, if the people at the wall can't fend off a attack if they've been starved so bad , a few more zombie soldiers won't make a difference.

Sending good able men on rescue missions was insane.

The most ludicrous thing he did was try to save Arya.

He allowed his emotions to get the better of him and as a result the watch was forced to either to support Jon's insane plan to lead a wildling charge against Ramsey or put him down like a mad dog.

Quite frankly, like all the men in his family it appears the biggest enemy is himself.

Jon's biggest enemy is his emotions.  So yeah himself.  He broke his oaths and violated the laws of the watch when he tried to rescue his sister.  This should not have been a surprise.  He already left his duties to help Robb Stark's rebellion and he had to be dragged back to the wall by his friends.  Jon was not fit to command and Samwell should have known that. 

[Dragonsbone]

This topic is in the show part of the forum, at least it is shown under the GoT subforum. Why is this a book discussion again? Is it a mistake?

[Varysblackfyre321]

On December 19, 2017 at 0:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nope, there is no indication that former wildlings and whores ever rose to high office in the Watch. Royal and noble bastards do, and commoners also can have more prominent positions than they usually have outside the Watch, but we see no commoner (i.e. man with only a single name) command one of the orders of the Watch or one of the castles.

The idea that only Leathers and Satin were available for the positions Jon gave them is pretty much insane. He made a choice there, a choice he did not have to make. It was either a deliberate provocation or stupidity.

If you are a Lord Commander and you feel you need the officers you are not really getting along with the best policy is to provoke and anger them only when you have to - not when you don't have to. And Jon didn't have to give Satin or Leathers the position he gave them.

Nobody said anything about training new men (although Jon chose to do that, anyway, by deciding to send Sam to Oldtown to become a maester) - it could have been enough to dismiss Marsh, Yarwyck, and Clydas and give their position to new men of Jon's choosing. Men who would then have to thank Lord Commander Snow for their appointments, making them potentially more loyal than their predecessors were. There should be some stewards in the NW capable of replacing Marsh as Lord Steward. And the same goes for Yarwyck and Clydas. Control of the access to the rookery and the ravens is key for any Lord Commander.

Marsh could have still plotted against Jon, of course, but one assumes that a good deal of his power and hold over the men of the Watch came from the fact that he was the Lord Steward. All the stewards are his men due to the office he holds. If he no longer was the Lord Steward many men may have been less willing to follow him.

Jon himself thinks the Others are not going to attack any minute. And he is not acting as if he thinks they could attack any minute. If he did think that, he would have never contemplated leading a ranging party to Hardhome or marching against Winterfell.

You do know that an administration can sabotage the efforts of the head of a government - be he a king, lord, or lord commander - in ways that aren't direct treason or disobedience, right? If you want things to go smoothly and efficiently your officers are your men and on your side. They don't run around and do work to rule, or anything like that. They work with their commander, not against him, and Jon's officers pretty much stood all against him.

It is also not that difficult to imagine how things could have gone much better. Send out Marsh on some suicidal ranging mission, say. Or give him command of one of the new castles alongside a man Jon trusts completely, that way Marsh would be separated from his power base among the stewards (aside from those actually being at the castle).

Keep the men you trust close by - Emmett and Edd, say - and give those you begin to trust important duties elsewhere (Leathers and Satin, say).

Jon makes pretty much the same mistakes as Ned did in AGoT. He sent away too many men he could trust, effectively inviting his enemies to attack him. If the entire Stark guard had still been at the Tower of the Hand when Robert died Cersei may not have dared stage her coup. If Emmett and Edd had been at Jon's side in his last chapter, there wouldn't have been an assassination.

And the way he treated Ghost was Robb and Greywind all over again. He really showed his incompetence there. Not to mention the fact that Melisandre pretty much told him repeatedly that men he trusted would try to kill him. That should have given him enough pause to actually think about the men he trusted, and how the hell the Winterfell decision was going to affect them. It is not that hard.

I mean, if I told you that the men Jon trusted might try to kill him what names do spring to mind first? Especially as the story progresses?

And Jon actually has proof that Mel has prophetic powers. She foresaw both the girl on the dying horse and the three eyeless heads. That she thought the girl was Arya doesn't change the fact that she saw a girl on a dying horse coming to Castle Black, right? It was utter stupidity not to take her Melisandre's warning seriously.

I don't think anyone has asked this question; would Ramsey coming over do some good? I mean if he did win, the Boltons are the literally going to be the last stand against the others. What if they show him an ice-zombie? I mean, seeing is believing, Ramsey is a monster, but seeing such a thing would gradually alarm him. Roose and Ramsey then would tell the IT(which trust them) and maybe the throne could send someone to verify the report.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think anyone has asked this question; would Ramsey coming over do some good? I mean if he did win, the Boltons are the literally going to be the last stand against the others. What if they show him an ice-zombie? I mean, seeing is believing, Ramsey is a monster, but seeing such a thing would gradually alarm him. Roose and Ramsey then would tell the IT(which trust them) and maybe the throne could send someone to verify the report.

I've raised that issue a couple of times. The fact that neither Stannis nor Jon try to convince the Boltons (or any of the other Northern lords) of the danger the true enemy poses is a huge plot hole in the novels.

Especially in light of the fact that Jon is willing to make common cause with scum like the Weeper.