Reasons why Jon would be a good king.

[Arthur Dayne's Honor]

Not quite what I asked..

OR: :eek: Someone has hacked ADsH profile.

nope I was just reaaaaaalllly baked.

[Berkilak]

You listed reasons why Jon is a good man. Not reasons he'd be a good king. There's a difference, and some traits don't transfer well.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

You listed reasons why Jon is a good man. Not reasons he'd be a good king. There's a difference, and some traits don't transfer well.

To quote myself

Also as you can see here in more details Jon also employs Plato's characteristics about the ideal leader:

leadership principles:

Moderation

Unity

Reforming

Judgment

Dialectic

The virtues that a leader must have:

Wisdom-discipline to his instincts

Prudence-Moderation

Bravery

Justice

[Berkilak]

The ideal leader isn't always the best leader. Ideals tend to conflict with reality.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The ideal leader isn't always the best leader. Ideals tend to conflict with reality.

I am 1000% sure that Plato knew what he talked about.

edit:

nope I was just reaaaaaalllly baked.

I see...

[Jon's Queen Consort]

nvm

[SkaggCannibal]

Jon would be the worst King. He tries to save every single soul he thinks of, instead of looking at the bigger picture. He doesn't have enough respect for the law. He would fail like Ned and Robb. He already proved that by getting himself killed at the Wall, as the LC... I don't think many people succeeded in that.

[Berkilak]

I am 1000% sure that Plato knew what he talked about.

Plato was a philosopher and an idealist who never led anything more than a seminar himself. His ideas were great for discussions, but were totally impractical. An ideal Platonic leader wouldn't last a week on the Iron Throne.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Jon would be the worst King. He tries to save every single soul he thinks of, instead of looking at the bigger picture. He doesn't have enough respect for the law. He would fail like Ned and Robb. He already proved that by getting himself killed at the Wall, as the LC... I don't think many people succeeded in that.

Yes, he can't see the bigger picture. I see, that is why he left an army to the Others.

Plato was a philosopher and an idealist who never led anything more than a seminar himself. His ideas were great for discussions, but were totally impractical. An ideal Platonic leader wouldn't last a week on the Iron Throne.

Examples, proofs etc...

[Berkilak]

Examples, proofs etc...

Methinks the burden is on you to explain exactly how a real world philosopher's musings about his own society apply to Westeros. That being said, in the strictest senses of those traits without the morality Plato prescribes to them, would probably work well. Jon, however, is much too moral to apply those traits for the good of the realm.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Methinks the burden is on you to explain exactly how a real world philosopher's musings about his own society apply to Westeros. That being said, in the strictest senses of those traits without the morality Plato prescribes to them, would probably work well. Jon, however, is much too moral to apply those traits for the good of the realm.

No. It's on to you.

[David Selig]

He's had the grand total of several months in charge of anything and he did so well he was assassinated by his own top lieutenants - sounds like a great ruler potential, right? :cool4:

[aceluby]

He's had the grand total of several months in charge of anything and he did so well he was assassinated by his own top lieutenants - sounds like a great ruler potential, right? :cool4:

Says more about the state of the NW more than the leadership seeing as the last NW LC was also assassinated by his own people.

[Berkilak]

No. It's on to you.

And I'm saying that Plato wrote about the qualities of a leader he wished in his own society, time and reality. Westeros is a very different society than Ancient Greece, Westeros is based on the Middle Ages, not the Classical, and Westeros is a fictional universe, separate from our own. Plato's writings do not apply. Unless you wish to explain why they would.

[Berkilak]

I should add that I don't think it's not a good discussion point - merely that saying Jon would be a good leader only because you can interpret his actions to coincide with the ideals of a man out of time isn't a good argument when its made without context.

[SkaggCannibal]

Yes, he can't see the bigger picture. I see, that is why he left an army to the Others.

In his mind he never made the argument of having to rescue the Wildlings or else they become an Others army, he only thinks how shocking it is and that there needs to be send help. This argument only comes on when trying to persuad other Night's Watch members, so I am not convinced. Typical hero-behavior and exactly what got Ned and Robb killed.

[Addam of Hull]

There is a difference between being a good man and a good king, but I'm not convinced that we can really suggest that a good man can't be a good king. I think much of what defines how well a king rules is how their personality and ability matches against the circumstances they're placed in to. Certainly, we have instances of cruel men being effective at what they do -- Tywin as Hand of the King comes to mind -- but we also have counter-examples of good men who ruled well. Ned Stark ruled over the North for nearly 15 years and inspired such loyalty that men march through a blizzard to rescue his daughter and speak of how women could walk freely down the Kingsroad without fear of being accosted during his tenure. Certainly, his time as Hand of the King ended badly, but Ned wasn't a bad ruler and he wasn't a bad person, but he was ill-suited to the task of ruling in King's Landing. Historically, Jaehaerys I and Daeron II strike me as Targaryen rulers who weren't bad men by any means and did an admiral job as king.

Which, I suppose, is the long way of saying that there is no magical formula for a good king, as Varys seems to postulate with (f)Aegon, and that while there are definitely traits out there that should disqualify one from leadership, how effective someone is at ruling has just as much to do with the circumstances of their reign as it does their personal characteristics. So I don't necessarily agree that the traits that Jon has would make him a good king, I also think it's premature to suggest that the traits he does have would make him a bad one as well.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Says more about the state of the NW more than the leadership seeing as the last NW LC was also assassinated by his own people.

Exactly! What Jon failed to do was to communicate his plans. That doesn't mean his leadership was wrong. He saved people, so no army of wights and more men for the Watch. I see, terrible leadership.

And I'm saying that Plato wrote about the qualities of a leader he wished in his own society, time and reality. Westeros is a very different society than Ancient Greece, Westeros is based on the Middle Ages, not the Classical, and Westeros is a fictional universe, separate from our own. Plato's writings do not apply. Unless you wish to explain why they would.

I still don't see why Jon would be a bad king.

edit:

In his mind he never made the argument of having to rescue the Wildlings or else they become an Others army, he only thinks how shocking it is and that there needs to be send help. This argument only comes on when trying to persuad other Night's Watch members, so I am not convinced. Typical hero-behavior and exactly what got Ned and Robb killed.

Really? Because as far as I know Jeyne got Robb killed and Ned's naivete.

[Amy Walker Gore]

I hate to say it, but I would have to agree that Jon will die just like his brother and his father, while trying to save someone else. It's not what most people want, but it tends to be a trend with GRRM, tragic deaths of heroic characters. I am starting to get the feeling that Stanis will take over the wall. He will either leave his crazy wife or she will die before the end, and I think whoever takes over the kingdom will send him there instead of killing him for his roll in all of this. I think Stanis would actually make a good commander on the wall, he is kind of hard and cold hearted, but they kind of need someone like that ( sadly , Jon is to soft hearted and will end him and his career). I can see a couple of people allowing him to do that if he promises to behave himself ( like they wanted to do with Ned before Joffrey killed him). The more I read Dany's chapters, the more I believe she is not meant to rule the 7 kingdoms, but she will conquer Easteros , then her and her dragons will defeat the Others and send them back until another long winter, then she will go home ( she has come to love her people she has collected way to much to just up and send them back after she fights all of those wars). I am trying to reread some books, and I am thinking they are either setting up Dany's brother to rule ( or he is going to get himself killed really soon) or Tyrion. I can see GRRM letting Tyrion rule and Sansa finally getting to be queen ( I think she has done a lot of growing up in the past few books and would make a very good queen after all). I would have to say that Tyrion has done the best job out of all of the characteres actually leading other people. Dany faultered some in the last book, and Jon as well. Dany's brother is just to young and inexperienced leading anyone and he seems to quick to act, doesn't really think things out. I can also see Dany letting Tyrion rule on her behalf, kind of like an exhaulted hand of the queen kind of role.

Oh well, I have changed my mind on some of these predictions of mine several times now and I am sure I will many more times before this is all over :eek:

[David Selig]

Says more about the state of the NW more than the leadership seeing as the last NW LC was also assassinated by his own people.

Jeor was a fool, his expedition North with nearly all rangers was just an idiotic idea which predictably ended in a disaster. Not punishing Jon after he tried to murder a superior officer (thorne) is an another proof he was pretty terrible at his job.