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

[Winter's Knight]

Hmm, I think I'll have to disagree here. This bit of conversation before they crossed the Wall makes me think Jon was dead meat the second he did something dubious...

Mance nodded. “Good. You’ll go with Jarl and Styr on the morrow, then. Both of you. Far be it from me to separate two hearts that beat as one.”

“Go where?” said Jon.

“Over the Wall. It’s past time you proved your faith with something more than words, Jon Snow.”

The Magnar was not pleased. “What do I want with a crow?”

“He knows the Watch and he knows the Wall,” said Mance, “and he knows Castle Black better than any raider ever could. You’ll find a use for him, or you’re a fool.”

Styr scowled. “His heart may still be black.”

“Then cut it out.”

You're assuming that Styr would take Jon's refusal as a betrayal rather than Jon just being a squeamish boy.

[RK Rajagopal]

No. Why would I? Jon needs to leave Styr soon anyway, he's killing a defenceless greybeard to buy more time would be a cruel, amoral and calculating action.

I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear above. Let us just assume that if Jon doesn't kill the old man, the watch will fall as a direct result of this. I am not arguing that this is the case. I am just telling, for the purpose of argument, let us just assume that is the case. If so, do you think the right course of action is to not kill the man? (who will be killed by someone else anyways)

[Dicer]

So the only thing that qualifies someone to be King is to have the ability to kill innocent people for the greater good?

What about proper administration, taking care of the common folk, commanding armies, ruling wisely and all that? Does not count if one is not able to kill innocent old men?

[RK Rajagopal]

Well, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree that these two events foreshadow a bad king,

Two small blunders and someone isn't fit to be king? Who hasn't made a blunder who's looking to be King?

On a separate note, Jon as king would make me frown.

The reason I put emphasis on those 2 "small blunders" is that they show the morals of Jon - If someone is in danger, try to save him/her at all costs. far too idealistic in my opinion to be King.

[RK Rajagopal]

So the only thing that qualifies someone to be King is to have the ability to kill innocent people for the greater good?

What about proper administration, taking care of the common folk, commanding armies, ruling wisely and all that? Does not count if one is not able to kill innocent old men?

Agreed, all that counts too. And Jon excels at all those. I just think his reign won't last very long, if he ever becomes King, because of his lack of perspective.

[Minsc]

What about proper administration, taking care of the common folk, commanding armies, ruling wisely and all that? Does not count if one is not able to kill innocent old men?

Well, Jon doesn't excel at those either seeing how is administration causes him to receive a knife to the back.

[Iona]

You're assuming that Styr would take Jon's refusal as a betrayal rather than Jon just being a squeamish boy.

Yes, I do admit that. Mainly because of the conversation that went on when Jon was told to kill the man.

He turned his back on the man. “No.”

The Magnar moved closer, tall, cold, and dangerous. “I say yes. I command here.”

“You command Thenns,” Jon told him, “not free folk.”

“I see no free folk. I see a crow and a crow wife.”

[LC Jaime Lannister]

The reason I put emphasis on those 2 "small blunders" is that they show the morals of Jon - If someone is in danger, try to save him/her at all costs. far too idealistic in my opinion to be King.

Most/All of the people in Westeros would prefer a King who is wiling to save the people. Probably the best king is a king that the people like.

[Winter's Knight]

I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear above. Let us just assume that if Jon doesn't kill the old man, the watch will fall as a direct result of this. I am not arguing that this is the case. I am just telling, for the purpose of argument, let us just assume that is the case. If so, do you think the right course of action is to not kill the man? (who will be killed by someone else anyways)

Ah.

Yes, I'd still think he did the right thing.

Well, Jon doesn't excel at those either seeing how is administration causes him to receive a knife to the back.

Hardly fair, seeing as how it's trying to save people that gets him knifed.

[jentario]

Mistakes 3 and 4 below:

3. Not giving a fuck about his men and their opinions. Throughout ADWD Jon did what was right (morally) by helping the Wildlings. But to his men, the Wildlings are the enemy- the enemy that had only just laid siege to the Wall and risked their lives in an almost certain defeat (before Stannis came). Jon made no attempt to explain to his men why they should help the Wildlings, only once in the whole book did he explain himself by saying the Wildlings in Hardhome will turn to wights without their help. Moreover, Jon seemed to shun his men's opinions instantly, without even giving them a thought. He alienated himself from his men, sent his friends away and surrounded himself with potential enemies. So when the time came and Jon became a danger to the a Watch, he made Marsh's (and the rest of them) decision a whole lot easier.

4. The big one... Helping Stannis, sending Mance to steal Ramsay's potential wife and marrying Alys Karstark to a Wildling as if he had the rights. He did all these things for personal and moral reasons, and their ramifications were pretty straightforward. The realm painted the picture of Jon Snow, the Stannis supporting traitor that is a challenge to the continuation of the Bolton's rule over the North. Obviously, Ramsay reacts: low and behold the Pink Letter. And it's not like Jon couldn't see it coming: he had multiple people advise him against his many political moves (at first Sam and Aemon and later Marsh and Yarwick). It's as if Jon didn't for one second think that Stannis could lose, and that the relationship he's building with him will not hurt them in the future. And let's face it, Stannis's chances at first were as slim as they could get. Jon was delusional and let his hatred for the Lannisters and the Boltons affect his choices- an action which some would even consider oathbreaking, as the Watch must not choose sides. So in the end, Jon truly fucked himself and the Watch in the process, which left Bowen Marsh with not much to do but remove him from his post.

With all that said and done, though, I think Jon (like Dany) will learn a lot from his mistakes in ADWD and will grow as a ruler- possibly enough to be a good king.

[Minsc]

Hardly fair, seeing as how it's trying to save people that gets him knifed.

Absolutly alienating his fellow NW is what gets him killed.

[RK Rajagopal]

Ah.

Yes, I'd still think he did the right thing.

OK. He did the right thing in your opinion. Is that what a King should do? A King who is responsible for all people, and not just for the one he kills with his own hand? Doesn't Jon have a responsibility towards his brothers at the watch?

[RK Rajagopal]

With all that said and done, though, I think Jon (like Dany) will learn a lot from his mistakes in ADWD and will grow as a ruler- possibly enough to be a good king.

Somehow, with Jon, I highly doubt that. He really had no inkling that what he was doing wasn't for the greater good.

[jentario]

Absolutly alienating his fellow NW is what gets him killed.

Nope, that just made their decision easier. It's how blatantly he interfered with the affairs of the realm, that led to the Pink Letter and placed the whole Watch at risk, that got Jon killed.

[The Wolves]

Absolutly alienating his fellow NW is what gets him killed.

He didn't mean to alienate them on purpose, I just think he was stressed and impatient with them refusing to see how the Wildings would help them against the Others

[Minsc]

He didn't mean to alienate them on purpose, I just think he was stressed and impatient with them refusing to see how the Wildings would help them against the Others

That doesn't improve his record if he didn't intend for it to happen all that much.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

It would be nice if you could explain why / where you think I am wrong.

FWIW, I think a practical man and just man, like Tyrion, would make a good king.

I will take your points one by one.

1. Refusing to execute the old man captured by the wildlings: How is the fact that someone is refuses to kill an inocent old man a mistake? Being a decent human being is a mistake? Jon did escaped and warned the NW without having his blood on his hand. That is all that matters.

2. Hardhome: Do we know what exactly happened there? I don't think so. So again being a decent human being and trying to help other people is a mistake?

3. Arranging the wedding of Alys Karstark: He didn't made Alys marry Sigorn. She opened his gates for her and protected her against her enemies. Why is that a mistake.? Don't forget how Alys was hunted:

With him came four mounted men-at-arms, a huntsman, and a pack of dogs, sniffing after Lady Alys as if she were a deer.

Easter egg or foreshadowing:

Marriages and inheritance are matters for the king.

4. Allowing Mance to pass the Wall to save Arya: That could be a mistake. But not a huge one. But who wouldn't help his only family left?

Basically what you say it that Jon's mistake is the fact that he is a decent human being. He always stund for those who have difficulties on helping themselves. Jon has saved people from certain death, people who would turned on him after being zombiefied. He did what his oaths said:

the shield that guards the realms of men.

After Jon took the leadership what he tried to do was that he tried his best to make everyone happy, Stannis, Mel, NW, wildlings and this is what Jon was doing all his life, giving Bran his fish, giving Arya the Needle, refusing to take a pup

"You have five true born children," Jon said. "Three sons, two daughters. The direwolf is the sigil of your House. Your children were meant to have these pups, my lord."

Bran saw his father's face change, saw the other men exchange glances. He loved Jon with all his heart at that moment. Even at seven, Bran understood what his brother had done. The count had come right only because Jon had omitted himself. He had included the girls, included even Rickon, the baby, but not the bastard who bore the surname Snow, the name that custom decreed be given to all those in the north unlucky enough to be born with no name of their own.

Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.

"The direwolf graces the banners of House Stark," Jon pointed out. "I am no Stark, Father."

Jon has all the characteristics that a King must have: He is just, merciful, smart, practical, is willing to make difficult unpopular decisions and most importandly he is self sacrificing and doesn't want to be a leader.

Tyrion is not just, merciful or self sacrificing.

[blood of the dragoon]

Every single person in this book makes bug leadership mistakes. So I guess nobody will be King or Queen, if one subscribes to the theory that only perfect people can be rulers.

In real life, can you point to more than a handful of leaders in all of mankind's history who didn't make mistakes or have moral shortcomings? Every US President makes mistakes on the way up and in office. Even Ghandi and MLK cheated on their wives, and I can't think of any leaders I respect more from the 20th Century. And both had many critics of their tactics. And both learned from their mistakes.

Who in ASOIAF would qualify if perfect decision-making is the qualification? Maybe Sam or Hot Pie...

What about JFK?

Oh wait...

[Dicer]

Well, Jon doesn't excel at those either seeing how is administration causes him to receive a knife to the back.

Really?

He was able to juggle three different factions at the Wall (NW, Wildlings, Stannis)

Had to deal with Stannis at the Wall

Able to make deals with the Iron Bank

Checks up on food stores and the readiness of the NW for arrival the Others

Able to make deals with Tormund

Saved the lives of thousand's of Wildlings.

Able to man the castles and find something for all the Wildlings to do

Tried to integrate the Wildlings into the North (Alys)

Was trying to study wights and know more about them to counter the Others

A few bigoted NW brothers turn against him and that makes him a bad administrator?

His love for his sister was one of the major factors in his getting stabbed. And you know who else lets their emotions get in the way of proper decision making? Catelyn. Releasing Jaime and putting her son's campaign in jeopardy. That must make her really stupid too.

[jentario]

He didn't mean to alienate them on purpose, I just think he was stressed and impatient with them refusing to see how the Wildings would help them against the Others

So you're saying he didn't mean to be a terrible ruler, but was? I agree.