Jon's poor battle record

[xander_blackfyre]

Jon's battle record, ability to inspire those that follow him, and his letting his emotions at times get the better of him are all just further proof that he is his father's son.  

[The Gizzard of Oz]

10 hours ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

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

That would make 95% of people unfit for command and much less fit to rule.  Jon belongs to the unfit class.

[StoneColdJorahMormont]

Jon's biggest problem is impulses, not so much his strategy... he loses because knowing he only has 100 men this week but could hold off and have another 1000 the next would be the better plan.... but he can't wait that long everything needs to be done and dusted there and then.

[Stormourne]

10 minutes ago, StoneColdJorahMormont said:

Jon's biggest problem is impulses, not so much his strategy... he loses because knowing he only has 100 men this week but could hold off and have another 1000 the next would be the better plan.... but he can't wait that long everything needs to be done and dusted there and then.

Not very accurate, to be honest. With the Battle of Bastards, Jon Snow was also fighting and anticipating the weather. The main reason why he stated he would actually war against Ramsay without waiting for the Knights of the Vale was because of a potential snowstorm. I believe he cited Stannis' army and how it had been entrapped by the snows. So, it was less about being "done and dusted" and more about taking a calculated risk. Either way, the knights showed up at the right moment - cliche trope, but who cares, amiright? That episode had been so awesome. 

Everyone is citing Jon's inadequacies, whereas I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's learned from that battle, and would not make the same mistake again. Although, can we really criticize him for trying to save Rickon? Had he done nothing, I think we would have criticized him more for being out of character.

[Lurid Jester]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:18 PM, 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's mostly the anti-Jon tribe. They will find anything to criticize about.  

Had he held his ground and ignored the obvious taunt, and ignored his brother's death like they seem to want him to, they would be criticizing him for that instead.  We'd probably have even seen a few "if he was a real King, he'd have tried to save his brother". 

Team Jon does it about Dany too.  

Ultimately I think both teams are going to be disappointed in the ending.  

[StoneColdJorahMormont]

43 minutes ago, Dawn of Fyre said:

Not very accurate, to be honest. With the Battle of Bastards, Jon Snow was also fighting and anticipating the weather. The main reason why he stated he would actually war against Ramsay without waiting for the Knights of the Vale was because of a potential snowstorm. I believe he cited Stannis' army and how it had been entrapped by the snows. So, it was less about being "done and dusted" and more about taking a calculated risk. Either way, the knights showed up at the right moment - cliche trope, but who cares, amiright? That episode had been so awesome. 

Everyone is citing Jon's inadequacies, whereas I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's learned from that battle, and would not make the same mistake again. Although, can we really criticize him for trying to save Rickon? Had he done nothing, I think we would have criticized him more for being out of character.

And the thing is..... HE is still here... as are his closest friends/allies.... sure he may have lost thousands of men nobody knew... but he is still standing as are his closest.

I'd rather lose battles and still be alive to see the next one than be a fantastic military leader that dies while watching his mum/wife/unborn child and everyone close to him slaughtered at a wedding feast of all places.

Say what you like about his skills at leading a successful battle, he always comes out on top regardless... be it luck/prophecy,,, I know i'd rather be at Jon Snows side going into a battle than any other character on the show.... if you're with Jon there's an 11 in 12 chance you're gonna live even if your going up against thousands of zombie armies and polar bears and trapped in the centre on a tiny rock.

Many will see him being saved all the time as weakness for not winning the battle himself, I see it as a strength that he has people that care enough or respect him enough to want to put there lives on the line to save him...

 

[falcotron]

This is another one of those titles that, the 300th time I see it on the list of threads, I can no longer stop interpreting the wrong way.

I want to hear Jon's battle LP now. Jon Snow Sings the Songs of Battle. I know it will be poor, but that's OK. I own William Shatner's Transformed Man, and the Free Enterprise soundtrack where he does two tracks from his rap musical adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I will pay $9.95, in three easy payments, to hear Jon Snow do something similar. Shut up and take my money!

[Lurid Jester]

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

This is another one of those titles that, the 300th time I see it on the list of threads, I can no longer stop interpreting the wrong way.

I want to hear Jon's battle LP now. Jon Snow Sings the Songs of Battle. I know it will be poor, but that's OK. I own William Shatner's Transformed Man, and the Free Enterprise soundtrack where he does two tracks from his rap musical adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I will pay $9.95, in three easy payments, to hear Jon Snow do something similar. Shut up and take my money!

If you own Leonard Nimoy's Bilbo Baggins song, then I'll be impressed.

[Kytheros]

3 hours ago, Dawn of Fyre said:

Not very accurate, to be honest. With the Battle of Bastards, Jon Snow was also fighting and anticipating the weather. The main reason why he stated he would actually war against Ramsay without waiting for the Knights of the Vale was because of a potential snowstorm. I believe he cited Stannis' army and how it had been entrapped by the snows. So, it was less about being "done and dusted" and more about taking a calculated risk. Either way, the knights showed up at the right moment - cliche trope, but who cares, amiright? That episode had been so awesome. 

Everyone is citing Jon's inadequacies, whereas I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's learned from that battle, and would not make the same mistake again. Although, can we really criticize him for trying to save Rickon? Had he done nothing, I think we would have criticized him more for being out of character.

For the Battle of the Bastards, Jon didn't know the Knights of the Vale were coming. He didn't believe any more Northern Lords would be joining them - the Knights of the Vale weren't even a consideration, as Sansa didn't mention them to Jon because "???" - Jon thought he had all the forces he was going to get, and for some reason there were no scouts or patrols out that saw the Vale forces. The plot holes involved in getting there make me cringe whenever I think about it, though it was an impressive piece of cinematography and visual spectacle.

[falcotron]

1 hour ago, Lurid Jester said:

If you own Leonard Nimoy's Bilbo Baggins song, then I'll be impressed.

In the middle of the earth, in the land of the Shire, lives a copy of The Two Sides of Leonard Nimoy.

 

 

[Stormourne]

1 hour ago, Kytheros said:

For the Battle of the Bastards, Jon didn't know the Knights of the Vale were coming. He didn't believe any more Northern Lords would be joining them - the Knights of the Vale weren't even a consideration, as Sansa didn't mention them to Jon because "???" - Jon thought he had all the forces he was going to get, and for some reason there were no scouts or patrols out that saw the Vale forces. The plot holes involved in getting there make me cringe whenever I think about it, though it was an impressive piece of cinematography and visual spectacle.

From what you've written, how is that a plot hole? He did not think he could muster anymore forces, nor did he have to luxury to wait since Winter is here. It was either fight or flight. Even had Rickon not been used to lure Jon into a trap, there was no guarantee that Jon could have won without the Knights of the Vale.

[plastic throne]

Just now, Dawn of Fyre said:

From what you've written, how is that a plot hole? He did not think he could muster anymore forces, nor did he have to luxury to wait since Winter is here. It was either fight or flight. Even had Rickon not been used to lure Jon into a trap, there was no guarantee that Jon could have won without the Knights of the Vale.

By your definition, everyone is an excellent commander because - no matter what they do, even most stupid series of mistakes - there is no guarantee he/she would win otherwise, had he/she make other plans, etc. Got it!

[Stormourne]

16 minutes ago, plastic throne said:

By your definition, everyone is an excellent commander because - no matter what they do, even most stupid series of mistakes - there is no guarantee he/she would win otherwise, had he/she make other plans, etc. Got it!

Plot hole... What does your comment have to do with the "plot hole" that I was commenting about? The other guy was trying to argue that what Jon did was a plot hole, which it is not by definition. Jon Snow is not an "excellent commander" nor is he the opposite. He sits in the grey area in-between. He made the best plans he thought were good at the time, with factors including numbers and weather. Sansa advised him to wait, not specifying when or if the Vale would show up. Jon was aware that Stannis had been entrapped by the weather before being defeated. All these factors played into his plan - he fell into a trap the moment Rickon was brought into the chessboard. He rushed to save his 'Little Brother' and when Rickon died before his eyes, turning back was not an option anymore. Archers had already taken aim at his position, so his only option was to charge the enemy.

These are not plot holes, nor examples of how shit of a battle commander he is. He had a solid plan, but Ramsay was smarter in utilizing his hostage. This was not a win-win situation for him.

Tell me this, had Jon Snow not rushed to save Rickon, would you be praising him as an excellent commander? Regardless, there is no evidence to show that Jon would have even won had he stuck to his initial plan. The Knights of the Vale won that battle. Jon Snow won the people because he thrust his sword into the fray, not shying from certain death.

That someone would argue he is an "excellent commander" is as flawed as someone who would argue he is a "poor commander". 

Your move - *taps chess clock*

[plastic throne]

12 minutes ago, Dawn of Fyre said:

He rushed to save his 'Little Brother' and when Rickon died before his eyes, turning back was not an option anymore. Archers had already taken aim at his position, so his only option was to charge the enemy.These are not plot holes, nor examples of how shit of a battle commander he is. He had a solid plan, but Ramsay was smarter in utilizing his hostage. This was not a win-win situation for him.

Tell me this, had Jon Snow not rushed to save Rickon, would you be praising him as an excellent commander? Regardless, there is no evidence to show that Jon would have even won had he stuck to his initial plan. The Knights of the Vale won that battle. Jon Snow won the people because he thrust his sword into the fray, not shying from certain death.

That someone would argue he is an "excellent commander" is as flawed as someone who would argue he is a "poor commander". 

Your move - *taps chess clock*

No? Why was there no option going back? He did it strictly because he is "bad ass" and is fueled by emotions, not brains. Which is a really, REALLY bad virtue to have as a general/commander. I give you that these aren't plot holes because Jon is established moron by then. Which he proves later down the road as well.

OMG yes! That is something I would praise. Even better if he ordered someone else of fetching the damn kid. And no, imo - based on everything I've read in history - you don't get appraisal for f****g up battle plans, pushing even more people that follow and trust you into certain death - just because you pulled a sword out and not run away?

I "tapped my chess clock" long ago but no one seem to reply when there were facts and historical examples. Most people just talk random stuff, assuming random stuff without any evidence to back it up (show, history) whatsoever. Not to mention cherry picking to which posts reply. In fact, I'm quite pissed about this subject as there is absolutely no way to prove anything to anyone. No matter what he does (or show writers), there will always be an apology, an excuse for it.

PS: I'm still waiting for that winter storm (already 2 seasons and multiple trips up and down the Westeros). You know, the very reason why he couldn't wait to get more men

[Stormourne]

37 minutes ago, plastic throne said:

No? Why was there no option going back? He did it strictly because he is "bad ass" and is fueled by emotions, not brains. Which is a really, REALLY bad virtue to have as a general/commander. I give you that these aren't plot holes because Jon is established moron by then. Which he proves later down the road as well.

OMG yes! That is something I would praise. Even better if he ordered someone else of fetching the damn kid. And no, imo - based on everything I've read in history - you don't get appraisal for f****g up battle plans, pushing even more people that follow and trust you into certain death - just because you pulled a sword out and not run away?

I "tapped my chess clock" long ago but no one seem to reply when there were facts and historical examples. Most people just talk random stuff, assuming random stuff without any evidence to back it up (show, history) whatsoever. Not to mention cherry picking to which posts reply. In fact, I'm quite pissed about this subject as there is absolutely no way to prove anything to anyone. No matter what he does (or show writers), there will always be an apology, an excuse for it.

That you would praise him for not actively trying to save his brother is indicative of your personality and character. You say he should have just ordered one of his men to fetch Rickon...? This does not make sense when you know of Jon Snow's character and who he is as a person. He does not just stand back and let others do his job. And in that moment, he was not thinking straight, about his army, nor about Ramsay laying a trap for him. All he thought about was protecting his family. That, in and of itself, does not make a poor battle commander - that just shows how effective Ramsay was in manipulating Jon Snow in that particular situation. He is not the best commander, nor the worst - he is somewhere in-between. And every battle will improve his leadership skills. People do learn from their mistakes, you know.

And that you ask why he had option to turn back when he was in the middle of the killing field shows me that you've forgotten some key details. In fact, I just re-watched that part so I could detail why he had no choice in matter once the trap was sprung:

The moment Rickon was brought out, you could see Jon Snow's expression change - from stoic and prepared for battle, to overriding concern and fear. Ramsay pulled out his knife and raised it in air, almost taunting Jon as if he was about to kill Rickon, only to cut him free, and tell him to run. Ramsay's plan here is evident, he wanted Jon Snow to ride forward and try to save Rickon. That is why he missed two shots with his bow only to strike true with his third arrow. Right where Jon was in range of his archers - mind you, he already gave the signal for his archers to notch their bows and prepare. At this point, Jon saw Ramsay grabbing his bow and nocking an arrow, so he realized the danger Rickon was in. Without thinking it through, his instincts kicked in and he made for his horse. There is nothing wrong in this scene, and it is believable because that is who Jon Snow is, a guy fighting for his family.

And remember that this is show, they're not going to have him command some random person to save Rickon. The only other notable character on a horse near Jon was Davos. And I doubt we could expect him to be heroic in that situation. So, once Rickon had been shot, Jon watched in horror as he died - shock, anger, hate; these emotions were visible on his face. Ramsay smirked, gave the nod to his archers, and turned away . Both Davos and Tormund realized what was about to occur, and gave the orders to prepare to charge. At this point, Jon was still standing still, furious. But he did not charge first - Ramsay's archer's let a volley of arrows loose, and then Jon charged forward. Had he not, he would have been shot full of arrows.

Now, you could argue that he should have turned around and rode back. I could argue that there was no time since the camera shifted from Jon's perspective to Ramsay's, at which point the arrows had been let loose, and then back to Jon who began his charge. Since this was way the camera shifted perspective, the only logical conclusion is that Jon saw the arrows being fired first before charging. Had he turned his horse and began riding back, the archers would have fired anyway, potentially hitting him in the back.

That is why I said he had no real choice in the matter. He lost the advantage the moment Rickon entered the field. Show-logic dictates that the hero should save the victim, not some nameless extra. So the writers and director shot the battle with Jon in that position. To turn back could mean death, so Jon charged forward. Ramsay played him good. This does not mean Jon is a poor commander, just one that had his kryptonite exposed during battle.

Checkmate? Or will you still resist logical thought and argumentation?

[plastic throne]

Ehh, whatever. There is no point in this. If you don't understand that generals are responsible for thousands of people, not just a few, you will NEVER understand what I am trying to explain to you.

A Life is life, all he proved is the fact he favors Rickon to all those standing behind him, those who - even against all this odds - went there to support his claim. And that is more than good reason for desertion, especially when ten of your (soldier POV) friends die because of that mistake your commander made. You need to take a commoner point of view here.

And it wasn't even the only mistake, btw. He just stood there in heat of the battle, fighting, oblivious to whatever is happening around him (like standing in kill zone, with Ramsey creating a 10meters wall behind him, out of bodies). He is a commander FFS, not a levie. He needs to asses situation and command his men, not this...

You can't go full meta in seeking an excuse. "Show dictates it should be hero who saves victim". I am done with this, like just few pages ago there was someone telling me I need to ignore all this because show runners wanted drama. 

And trust me, the only thing I hate here is how they messed this character up just so they can get few "epic scenes" and have that tension, drama "is he going to survive" followed by deux ex machina.

I love book Jon and Wildlings, maybe that is why I am so passionate about this subject.

[Stormourne]

18 minutes ago, plastic throne said:

Ehh, whatever. There is no point in this. If you don't understand that generals are responsible for thousands of people, not just a few, you will NEVER understand what I am trying to explain to you.

A Life is life, all he proved is the fact he favors Rickon to all those standing behind him, those who - even against all this odds - went there to support his claim. And that is more than good reason for desertion, especially when ten of your (soldier POV) friends die because of that mistake your commander made. You need to take a commoner point of view here.

And it wasn't even the only mistake, btw. He just stood there in heat of the battle, fighting, oblivious to whatever is happening around him (like standing in kill zone, with Ramsey creating a 10meters wall behind him, out of bodies). He is a commander FFS, not a levie. He needs to asses situation and command his men, not this...

You can't go full meta in seeking an excuse. "Show dictates it should be hero who saves victim". I am done with this, like just few pages ago there was someone telling me I need to ignore all this because show runners wanted drama. 

And trust me, the only thing I hate here is how they messed this character up just so they can get few "epic scenes" and have that tension, drama "is he going to survive" followed by deux ex machina.

I love book Jon and Wildlings, maybe that is why I am so passionate about this subject.

Look, Jon did fuck up in that moment - but, what I'm arguing is that had he not done what he did, it would have been out of character. You would have been criticizing him since there was no way Jon's army was going to win without the Vale, and that not trying to at least save his brother was callous, something Sansa would have done - she would not have even tried to save him, which is why I dislike her character - there is logic, and then there is heartlessness. That is how the writers constructed the whole narrative of the episode. People were going to die either way - and we cannot just put all the blame on Jon Snow, not without unpacking the reasons to his rushed decision.

Ramsay outplayed him. It is as simple as that. Ramsay knew how to manipulate Jon Snow, how to force his enemy into making the first mistake. And we could argue back and forth about how Jon reacted in the meele, but that would not solve anything. You can have all the best plans in the world, and it will go to shit once the screaming starts. The adrenaline rush alone makes it difficult to formulate plans - and Jon Snow is 18 or 19 in the show, which means he does not have the best 'real-life' experience in warfare. So it is impractical and implausible to expect him never to make a mistake in battle.

That would be bad writing. I'm just analyzing the way the writers constructed his narrative in that episode. And it makes sense. He was put in an impossible position, and he did not have time to think through all his options. Am I wrong in this assumption? Or should Jon Snow be some emotionless leader that never reacts to surprises, never makes mistakes, and just does the most effective maneuvers at every single turn. Would that Jon Snow make you happier?

FYI, Jon Snow and Arya Stark are my absolute favorite characters. In both the book and the show. And that is why I will defend him with all the intellectual weapons I possess. He is not a bad commander, just an inexperienced one. Leading the Night's Watch and leading an actual army into war is quite different. Especially when you're not protected by a wall three hundred meters high.

[Kytheros]

3 hours ago, Dawn of Fyre said:

From what you've written, how is that a plot hole? He did not think he could muster anymore forces, nor did he have to luxury to wait since Winter is here. It was either fight or flight. Even had Rickon not been used to lure Jon into a trap, there was no guarantee that Jon could have won without the Knights of the Vale.

Jon's actions, based on what he knows, aren't a plot hole. Mostly anyways.

Plot holes include (1) Sansa not mentioning the Knights of the Vale to Jon, (2) the fact that the Knights of the Vale somehow managed to make it all the way to Winterfell without anybody noticing they were there - scouts? patrols? there should have been at least some out, keeping an eye on what Ramsay was up to, and looking in other directions too - and it'd take a blind and deaf man to miss an army in motion, (3) whatever happened to "the North Remembers" and Northern loyalty to the Starks that was so emphasized in prior seasons.

The plot holes are mostly in events leading up to the start of the battle. Oh, and that wall of corpses. And whatever happened to Wun Wun using weapons?

[Sir Dingleberry]

9 hours ago, The Gizzard of Oz said:

That would make 95% of people unfit for command and much less fit to rule.  Jon belongs to the unfit class.

I mean no argument but just makes him human, which I'm guessing the show needed after throwing Ramsey at us for so long.

8 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

It's mostly the anti-Jon tribe. They will find anything to criticize about.  

Had he held his ground and ignored the obvious taunt, and ignored his brother's death like they seem to want him to, they would be criticizing him for that instead.  We'd probably have even seen a few "if he was a real King, he'd have tried to save his brother". 

Team Jon does it about Dany too.  

Ultimately I think both teams are going to be disappointed in the ending.  

Agreed. Its a lose-lose either way. Still would have liked to have seen how it played out if he didn't go after Rickon though.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

3 hours ago, Kytheros said:

Plot holes include (1) Sansa not mentioning the Knights of the Vale to Jon, (2) the fact that the Knights of the Vale somehow managed to make it all the way to Winterfell without anybody noticing they were there - scouts?

I agree Sansa's letter is a big hole. The audience knew that the Vale army is likely to come not only from her letter but also from the scenes in Vale, where LF persuades SR to send the army.

But we don't know if Sansa received an answer from LF. That's why I can't accept all this Sansa-bashing for not telling Jon. The audience knew that the army comes, but there's no proof that Sansa knew it too.