Jon's mistakes - and why he shouldn't be King

[RK Rajagopal]

Not even. Just because you are a dictator doesn't mean you are bad. It's just the case that most people who become dictator abuses their power or are simply not fit to rule.

There've been great dictators in the world, Garibaldi, Peisistratos, Alexander the Great.

Just because you aren't elected doesn't mean you cannot be good.

I agree with you completely. I just stated a weaker version to get the point across to those who don't agree.

[RK Rajagopal]

It's the bigger picture I want to draw here for you, not just to defend Jon to the Boltons. If Ramsay gets something in his head, no amount of argumentation will change his mind. :P I can see that you might be pretty adamant in some of your views, and it's for the sake of good discussion and the possibility of you getting to see other points-of-view on the matter that I keep challenging you.

And to be fair, I think you might be adamant in some of yours :P. In any case, I do enjoy this discussion.

[The Wolves]

What if he was a good leader/general for the war, but terrible at rebuilding, which is the type of person Westeros will need.

Jon could be good at rebuilding things, I think him merging the Wildings with the Watch was the best idea in the series. I think if he was given time and a "end of the world" threat was not looming over him than he could have done a great job incorporating the Wildings South of the Wall and building relationships with the seven Kingdoms or most specifically the North.

Jon would have benefited a lot from the 5yr gap George wanted to do.

Though I don't think Jon should in any way becoming King

[Han Snow]

Actually no I didn't miss the point I understood exactly what you meant. I counteracted the point with some logic. What can Jon do that other people can't do? Does he have some mystic powers that neither Bran, Rickon, Sansa,Arya, and Dany have that can defeat the others? Yea, he knows about them, but that still hasn't helped much. Is he really the only one that can save the world or at least Westeros? What makes him uniquely qualified?

Yes you did, because you did not argue any of that in your flamatory post when you accused people still wanting Jon to be king even if he destroys the world. I just mocked that particular statement of yours. The rest I don't care or want to argue. Read all the brilliant posts already made by others.

[Lord Ravenstark]

I refuse to believe or accept that Jon will die. I hope he will survive the stabbing somehow, maybe with Mel's help or whatever. Jon mustn't die.

I respect it, I have characters who I like too (even when they flirt with the obviously evil, like Bran). Hope you can respect my belief. Anyway, I'm not the writter so we will have to wait the next book.

I think people are mistaking good intentions (Dany/Jon/Bran/Ned... hell, even VARYS ... all have good intentions) with good choices/actions/work (Dany's mass murder/genocide and insane choices, Ned's bad choices, Varys... the hell he is playing with).

[RK Rajagopal]

I respect it, I have characters who I like too (even when they flirt with the obviously evil, like Bran). Hope you can respect my belief. Anyway, I'm not the writter so we will have to wait the next book.

I think people are mistaking good intentions (Dany/Jon/Bran/Ned... hell, even VARYS ... all have good intentions) with good choices/actions/work (Dany's mass murder/genocide and insane choices, Ned's bad choices, Varys... the hell he is playing with).

There is no doubt that Jon is a good man, with the best intentions. Whether his actions will be good for the realm is the point of debate.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Because that said person has power - which can be used in any way he/she chooses

Well there's really no such thing as a person who is simply called King and then somehow has the power to do whatever they want. There is a King that it exists because of and is constrained by a system that grants them certain powers.

[Iona]

And to be fair, I think you might be adamant in some of yours :P. In any case, I do enjoy this discussion.

Hahaa, I once thought I might be, but I was proven wrong after I joined this forum!

To be honest, I don't really care that much for Jon, but the points I try to make are some that I've come to see only after hanging out in this forum. I frequently burn my fingers in threads and have to face my naivety with regards to some events and characters, but for some reason I find it quite refreshing. Let's raise a toast for different views! :cheers:

[Dicer]

My point is that Jon wasn't even concerned about these things. We have his POV, we know what he thinks. Never does he fear or prepare himself for Bolton / Lannister retaliation. Jon is talented and creative. He successfully integrated the wildlings into the north - unthinkable for any LC before him. Had he tried, he might have found a way. If he couldn't, that's fine. My complaint is that he was never worried about it - unlike Marsh, who constantly reminds him. Maybe he could have hidden Alys and denied she came. Maybe he could have sent an envoy to the Boltons. I don't know what he could have done - I just wanted him to try, and be concerned about it.

And my point is that in some cases, it was not even a choice. He just had to deal with whatever he had. Take Stannis for example. You constantly keep bringing up the point that Jon's support for Stannis destroyed his neutrality. But Stannis was already there. He had an army and he was making demands on Jon. Jon had to interact with him. He had to negotiate with him. Jon had no power to kick Stannis off the wall. In fact he had to negotiate with Stannis to get some concessions. So why should Jon ponder over this choice when the choice has already been made for him?

But Stannis being there takes away the Wall's neutrality through no fault of Jon's. Both the Lannisters and Boltons already think that Jon has sided with Stannis. So the watch has already lost it's neutrality and Jon knows this, but he tries for help anyway with the paper shield.

Similarly with Alys. We see Jon thinking that it's would be a good way to integrate the Wildlings into the North. He sees a chance to make one of his ideas work and he grabs it. If he was worried about the Boltons maybe he is confident that Stannis will take care of that threat. He wants to protect Alys too. As someone said upthread, the Karstarks are also supposedly allies of Stannis. So why should he send an envoy to the Boltons? He dealt with the Karstarks. That should be more than enough.

While Marsh constantly reminds him of all his problems he offers no solution or alternative that Jon can consider. And that's the problem with Marsh. He does not like what Jon is doing but he cannot give any other answer as well. Just like you are doing.

If Jon is only focused on neutrality, then he would probably try to kick Stannis off the wall. In which case Stannis would probably replace him with another LC. He is supposed to be unkind to the banker which could probably affect future deals with the Iron Bank. And he should make no efforts to try to mend fences between the Wildlings and the North and not care about the Realm at all.

[By the Old Gods Not theNew]

Selyse's advice was terrible. She argues the Free Folk should be left to die because there isn't enough food, the kids are too young to help Stan win the IT, and if they die they'll be reborn in the light. I'm not sure how this makes any sense. There is enough food, she doesn't know this, but Jon does. Stan's ability to win the IT is irrelevant to the NW, which takes no part in such conflicts. And the dead won't be reborn in the light but as wights, which is why Jon is taking the risk of bring them south of the Wall.

Mel's advice is based on the fact that she's "seen it in her fires"...to which Jon replies "your fires have lied" and she says "yeah I've made mistakes" and Jon says to rely on your fire visions is a "fool's hope." So Mel's only justification for why Jon should listen is her, admittedly, less then reliable power of prophecy. Her credibility is the only reason to believe her claim to have knowledge about the future, and seeing how that's already been compromised her advice falls on deaf ears. How does it make sense to listen to a false prophet?

When Jon consults w/ Marsh and Yarwyck it goes like this:

It was the same again with Hardhome. Satin poured whilst Jon told them of his audience with

the queen. Marsh listened attentively, ignoring the mulled wine, whilst Yarwyck drank one cup and then

another. But no sooner had Jon finished than the Lord Steward said, “Her Grace is wise. Let them die.”

Jon sat back. “Is that the only counsel you can offer, my lord? Tormund is bringing eighty men.

How many should we send? Shall we call upon the giants? The spearwives at Long Barrow? If we have

women with us, it may put Mother Mole’s people at ease.”

“Send women, then. Send giants. Send suckling babes. Is that what my lord wishes to hear?”

Bowen Marsh rubbed at the scar he had won at the Bridge of Skulls. “Send them all. The more we lose,

the fewer mouths we’ll have to feed.”

Yarwyck was no more helpful. “If the wildlings at Hardhome need saving, let the wildlings here

go save them. Tormund knows the way to Hard-home. To hear him talk, he can save them all himself

with his huge member.”

This was pointless, Jon thought. Pointless, fruitless, hopeless. “Thank you for your counsel, my

lords.”

I'm not sure how this is advice nor how it makes sense, unless the point is for as many of the free folk to die as possible.

Keep in mind the text is our reference point. And the reasons you've given for why the ranging to HH is a bad idea weren't those given by Mel, Selyse, or Marsh, so they don't really matter. Further, we don't know the specifics of Tormund's and Jon's deliberation over the 2 hours they discussed their plans, however it's safe to assume Tormund actually engaged the deliberative process unlike Sel-Mel-Marsh. IMO it makes more sense to listen to the person who engages the deliberative process with an open mind as opposed to listening to people of questionable credibility who refuse to even participate in the process, but that's just me.

[RK Rajagopal]

And my point is that in some cases, it was not even a choice. He just had to deal with whatever he had. Take Stannis for example. You constantly keep bringing up the point that Jon's support for Stannis destroyed his neutrality. But Stannis was already there. He had an army and he was making demands on Jon. Jon had to interact with him. He had to negotiate with him. Jon had no power to kick Stannis off the wall. In fact he had to negotiate with Stannis to get some concessions. So why should Jon ponder over this choice when the choice has already been made for him?

But Stannis being there takes away the Wall's neutrality through no fault of Jon's. Both the Lannisters and Boltons already think that Jon has sided with Stannis and the watch's neutrality is lost. So the watch has already lost it's neutrality and Jon knows this, but he tries for help anyway with the paper shield.

Similarly with Alys. We see Jon thinking that it's would be a good way to integrate the Wildlings into the North. He sees a chance to make one of his ideas work and he grabs it. If he was worried about the Boltons maybe he is confident that Stannis will take care of that threat. He wants to protect Alys too. As someone said upthread, the Karstarks are also supposedly allies of Stannis. So why should he send an envoy to the Boltons? He dealt with the Karstarks. That should be more than enough.

While Marsh constantly reminds him of all his problems he offers no solution or alternative that Jon can consider. And that's the problem with Marsh. He does not like what Jon is doing but he cannot give any other answer as well. Just like you are doing.

If Jon is only focused on neutrality, then he would probably try to kick Stannis off the wall. In which case Stannis would probably replace him with another LC. He is supposed to be unkind to the banker which could probably affect future deals with the Iron Bank. And he should make no efforts to try to mend fences between the Wildlings and the North and not care about the Realm at all.

I respectfully disagree with all points you have made above.

Stannis: I agree with Jon's actions. I am a little disturbed that Jon doesn't share Marsh's concerns. Why is he so reluctant to sign the paper shield? But I still agree with what he did. Like you said, he had no choice.

Alys: I think he should have handled this differently, mainly because whatever he did was public. Why not just hide her and say she never came? But what really bothers me is that Jon isn't concerned about the Bolton threat - he doesn't even think about it. You said "Stannis will take care of it". What if he doesn't? I do believe that at that point, that was a very realistic possibility.

As for the Karstarks being Stannis' men, do you really think Ramsay Snow will care?

As for the bknker, any deals which he makes with him is fine. However, sending him horses and supplies to visit Stannis will be, I think, perceived hostile by the Boltons - whether it is in his limits of neutrality or not.

Overall,I'm concerned that he didn't prepare for the eventuality of a Bolton victory. He just hoped and assumed Stannis would win.

[RK Rajagopal]

Hahaa, I once thought I might be, but I was proven wrong after I joined this forum!

To be honest, I don't really care that much for Jon, but the points I try to make are some that I've come to see only after hanging out in this forum. I frequently burn my fingers in threads and have to face my naivety with regards to some events and characters, but for some reason I find it quite refreshing. Let's raise a toast for different views! :cheers:

:cheers:

[RK Rajagopal]

Selyse's advice was terrible. She argues the Free Folk should be left to die because there isn't enough food, the kids are too young to help Stan win the IT, and if they die they'll be reborn in the light. I'm not sure how this makes any sense. There is enough food, she doesn't know this, but Jon does. Stan's ability to win the IT is irrelevant to the NW, which takes no part in such conflicts. And the dead won't be reborn in the light but as wights, which is why Jon is taking the risk of bring them south of the Wall.

Mel's advice is based on the fact that she's "seen it in her fires"...to which Jon replies "your fires have lied" and she says "yeah I've made mistakes" and Jon says to rely on your fire visions is a "fool's hope." So Mel's only justification for why Jon should listen is her, admittedly, less then reliable power of prophecy. Her credibility is the only reason to believe her claim to have knowledge about the future, and seeing how that's already been compromised her advice falls on deaf ears. How does it make sense to listen to a false prophet?

When Jon consults w/ Marsh and Yarwyck it goes like this:

the queen. Marsh listened attentively, ignoring the mulled wine, whilst Yarwyck drank one cup and then

another. But no sooner had Jon finished than the Lord Steward said, “Her Grace is wise. Let them die.”

Jon sat back. “Is that the only counsel you can offer, my lord? Tormund is bringing eighty men.

How many should we send? Shall we call upon the giants? The spearwives at Long Barrow? If we have

women with us, it may put Mother Mole’s people at ease.”

“Send women, then. Send giants. Send suckling babes. Is that what my lord wishes to hear?”

Bowen Marsh rubbed at the scar he had won at the Bridge of Skulls. “Send them all. The more we lose,

the fewer mouths we’ll have to feed.”

Yarwyck was no more helpful. “If the wildlings at Hardhome need saving, let the wildlings here

go save them. Tormund knows the way to Hard-home. To hear him talk, he can save them all himself

with his huge member.”

This was pointless, Jon thought. Pointless, fruitless, hopeless. “Thank you for your counsel, my

lords.”

I'm not sure how this is advice nor how it makes sense, unless the point is for as many of the free folk to die as possible.

Keep in mind the text is our reference point. And the reasons you've given for why the ranging to HH is a bad idea weren't those given by Mel, Selyse, or Marsh, so they don't really matter. Further, we don't know the specifics of Tormund's and Jon's deliberation over the 2 hours they discussed their plans, however it's safe to assume Tormund actually engaged the deliberative process unlike Sel-Mel-Marsh. IMO it makes more sense to listen to the person who engages the deliberative process with an open mind as opposed to listening to people of questionable credibility who refuse to even participate in the process, but that's just me.

Agreed. They don't try to actively engage in the discussion, unlike possibly Tormund. Do you think we should take whatever Tormund might have said off screen alone as sufficient justification for the ranging? I don't think so. However, I do concede that that is a point to be made in support of the ranging.

[RK Rajagopal]

Well there's really no such thing as a person who is simply called King and then somehow has the power to do whatever they want. There is a King that it exists because of and is constrained by a system that grants them certain powers.

Forget "King". I just want to talk about people with power. Some people use this power better than others, as far as the realm is concerned, is what I am saying

[Dicer]

Alys: I think he should have handled this differently, mainly because whatever he did was public. Why not just hide her and say she never came? But what really bothers me is that Jon isn't concerned about the Bolton threat - he doesn't even think about it. You said "Stannis will take care of it". What if he doesn't? I do believe that at that point, that was a very realistic possibility.

As for the Karstarks being Stannis' men, do you really think Ramsay Snow will care?

As for the bknker, any deals which he makes with him is fine. However, sending him horses and supplies to visit Stannis will be, I think, perceived hostile by the Boltons - whether it is in his limits of neutrality or not.

Overall,I'm concerned that he didn't prepare for the eventuality of a Bolton victory. He just hoped and assumed Stannis would win.

Again, why should he be concerned about a Bolton threat? The Karstarks are officially allies of Stannis. Jon married off a daughter of one his father's bannermen. He should be worried of a threat from the Karstarks and he dealt with that.

And if the news gets to Ramsay Bolton about the Karstarks, so what? Ramsay is going to defeat Stannis and then march to the wall because of Alys Karstark? Really? And I don't think we even need to debate this point seeing as how the Boltons were totally not bothered by all this. Ramsay was more pissed off about his bride and Mance. There was no mention of the Karstarks in the pink letter. In the grand scheme of things they are nothing considering that Jon has already sided with Stannis.

As for the banker, I just think that giving him a horse and some supplies is not a big deal. And he earned some goodwill from Tycho Nestoris.

[By the Old Gods Not theNew]

I would side with the decision of Jon and Tormund over Sel-Mel-Marsh...just based on their reputations, but that doesn't mean they're right. It's a judgement call either way.

[BlackStark]

The flip side is that if Jon doesn't try to save then they will definitely become wights. Given that, with the exception of Sam the Slayer, everybody seems to struggle with killing wights allowing their numbers to increase massively is a huge risk. Put against that the risk of a several hundred men and horses in attempting to bring those thousands of people south of the Wall is strategically sound.

In that sense you are not arguing from the text but arguing against your view of what the character is by implicitly proposing that Jon does not comply with your standard of what a hero or a king should be. Which is fine, but the issue is then is not that Jon is right or wrong, but that you are judging GRRM's characters by your standard rather than trying to see the character in their own light.

Serious question: Can the Others or wights pass through or scale the Wall? If not, then it doesn't matter whether a few more thousand wights are created at Hardhomme or for even from the wildings that eventually were integrated into the NW...it will be the magic within the Wall that will prevent an invasion, not the men manning it.

[RK Rajagopal]

Again, why should he be concerned about a Bolton threat? The Karstarks are officially allies of Stannis. Jon married off a daughter of one his father's bannermen. He should be worried of a threat from the Karstarks and he dealt with that.

And if the news gets to Ramsay Bolton about the Karstarks, so what? Ramsay is going to defeat Stannis and then march to the wall because of Alys Karstark? Really? And I don't think we even need to debate this point seeing as how the Boltons were totally not bothered by all this. Ramsay was more pissed off about his bride and Mance. There was no mention of the Karstarks in the pink letter. In the grand scheme of things they are nothing considering that Jon has already sided with Stannis.

As for the banker, I just think that giving him a horse and some supplies is not a big deal. And he earned some goodwill from Tycho Nestoris.

I do believe that each of these actions would be hard to justify to the Boltons, but the whole point is made moot by the Mance mission - they don't matter anymore. What really bothers me is that he didn't even think how the Boltons would react. Don't you think he should have been concerned about it?

[Iona]

Serious question: Can the Others or wights pass through or scale the Wall? If not, then it doesn't matter whether a few more thousand wights are created at Hardhomme or for even from the wildings that eventually were integrated into the NW...it will be the magic within the Wall that will prevent an invasion, not the men manning it.

"Dead things in the water" is alarming, not sure about them scaling the Wall but there's been discussion that they might try to go around it.

I have a mental image of wights making the biggest human pyramid the North has ever seen next to the Wall, but for some reason I doubt that's the approach GRRM will take if he ever wants them to pass.

[Dicer]

I do believe that each of these actions would be hard to justify to the Boltons, but the whole point is made moot by the Mance mission - they don't matter anymore. What really bothers me is that he didn't even think how the Boltons would react. Don't you think he should have been concerned about it?

No I don't think he should be concerned about how the Boltons would react to Alys Karstark's marriage. Like I said, it was the Karstarks he needed to be worried about and he dealt with them.

I do think he should have been a bit worried about Mance's mission. He was worried about Arya, but he did not consider the implications of Mance being caught. That's a direct attack against the Boltons for personal reasons. For which he probably should have been worried about repercussions from the Boltons. Maybe he was too overconfident about Mance and his spearwives' undercover, seal team six, ninja abilities.