Why did George give daenerys everything

[The Sleeper]

Psychopathy or sociopathy for one is not a generally accepted term or condition. Official publications tend to avoid it and there are psychologists and psychiatrists who reject it altogether. 

Even so, for someone to qualify as having a personality disorder, they should display a pervasive and inflexible pattern of behavior. In plainer terms for Arya to qualify she would need to be aggressive and violent to everyone she meets under any circumstances. The condition is also associated with impulsivity and recklessness again also in a pervasive pattern of behavior. 

Psychopath also does not equate with killer and vice versa. There would be textbook psychopaths who are not killers, and individuals who don't display any such traits who are. 

The term is an aphorism in Arya's case, nothing more. She has displayed many heroic qualities such as bravery, loyalty, selflessness. Being a killer or a vigilante does not disqualify her. She shares this with multitudes of characters in popular culture and beyond. And personally I would be hard pressed to say what vigilantism means in a warzone or in a society where justice consists on one person being judge and jury and in the Starks' case executioner. 

There is a lot to be told about Arya. I find that this kind of discussion is off the point. 

 

 

[Back door hodor]

On 8/22/2018 at 4:38 PM, Makk said:

Yes, but the war with Yunkai has absolutely nothing to do with the hostages. There was also a civil war within Meereen, and the peace that resulted from Daenerys's actions is what Baristan threw away. The person who poisoned the locusts was not a member of the Harpy, it was Skahaz mo Kandaq, the Shavepate. Granted this hasn't been revealed in the books yet, but I am absolutely convinced about it. Again, I advise you to read the link I posted before.

And neither of these are the real war....those ships from quarth and volantis have been on their way since Xaro gave Dany that glove, that war was coming no matter what.....I believe the Shakaz says this to barristan....I believe he also said hizdar knew this and planned to surrender....so yea Barristan is not some old warmonger shattering a magic peaceful utopia

[Hodor the Articulate]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Does he though? 

There is little question that Dareon is portrayed extremely negatively as he whores it up in comfort after abandoning Sam and Gilly in their hour of desperate need, with a hungry crying baby and a dying Maester Aemon.

That juxtaposition demands poetic justice from the reader’s point of view and Arya steps in as the hand of universal cause and effect to deliver that karmic justice.  

The same applies to the revolting depiction of Raff and the Tickler, in the leadup to their just desserts at Arya’s hand.

It seems to me he set these scenes up pretty well to show that harsh, but fair, justice does sometimes get delivered even in Westeros.

While I am on record that the whole Janos Slynt execution leaves me greatly underwhelmed, there seems little doubt that Martin intended that too to be a depiction of karmic justice being delivered to Slynt for his betrayal of Eddard.

There are many more examples, but these are the few that seem quite apt at this point in time.

In short, I don’t think Martin displays a blanket negative portrayal of vengeance at all. 

"Her hands were red and sticky when Sandor dragged her off him. "Enough," was all he said. He was bleeding like a butchered pig himself, and dragging one leg when he walked."

The squire had pulled the knife out of his belly and was trying to stop the blood with his hands. When the Hound yanked him upright, he screamed and started to blubber like a baby. "Mercy," he wept, "please. Don't kill me. Mother have mercy."

"Do I look like your bloody mother?" The Hound looked like nothing human. "You killed this one too," he told Arya. "Pricked him in his bowels, that's the end of him. He'll be a long time dying, though."

Sure, Arya's kills are cathartic in some way, as vengeance always is, but that doesn't mean her actions are framed positively. You're supposed to read these scenes and think "wow, that's fucked up".

 

Similarly with Janos Slynt, the morality of Jon's actions don't go unquestioned. If we were supposed to just cheer at his beheading, he would have been screaming insults to the end. We wouldn't have gotten this scene humanising him:

Janos Slynt twisted his neck around to stare up at him. "Please, my lord. Mercy. I'll … I'll go, I will, I …"

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

"Her hands were red and sticky when Sandor dragged her off him. "Enough," was all he said. He was bleeding like a butchered pig himself, and dragging one leg when he walked."

The squire had pulled the knife out of his belly and was trying to stop the blood with his hands. When the Hound yanked him upright, he screamed and started to blubber like a baby. "Mercy," he wept, "please. Don't kill me. Mother have mercy."

"Do I look like your bloody mother?" The Hound looked like nothing human. "You killed this one too," he told Arya. "Pricked him in his bowels, that's the end of him. He'll be a long time dying, though."

Sure, Arya's kills are cathartic in some way, as vengeance always is, but that doesn't mean her actions are framed positively. You're supposed to read these scenes and think "wow, that's fucked up".

 

Similarly with Janos Slynt, the morality of Jon's actions don't go unquestioned. If we were supposed to just cheer at his beheading, he would have been screaming insults to the end. We wouldn't have gotten this scene humanising him:

Janos Slynt twisted his neck around to stare up at him. "Please, my lord. Mercy. I'll … I'll go, I will, I …"

 

That’s just to keep things real, to show that things are messy and gritty.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, teej6 said:

@Lord Varys I don’t claim to be an expert on the nature of sociopaths or psychopaths, but just a simple search will give you a basic understanding of the two conditions and your definition and understanding is utterly wrong.

I'm not expert, either, but I've actually read two books on the subjects by a person who actually works with criminal and highly-functioning psychopaths. Unfortunately the books are not in English; if you can read German I'll give you a link - but I'm sure there are other books in English about the subject as well.

The crucial aspect there to understand is that psychopathy is a term summarizing a spectrum of various mental disorders - Arya (and even Littlefinger) both wouldn't get all points on the psychopathy checklist but they would both rank pretty high. Sociopath is a term used to classify people who are not capable of properly following rules - very few people in the series are classified in this manner, especially not Cersei, considering that her life is not succession of her breaking/not caring about basic social norms. Cersei knows she cannot have sex with her brother out in the open (in a sept, say), nor did she ever run around stealing things, not showing up when it was required of her, and she tries to conceal the murders she commands, etc.

But again, this isn't really the place to discuss this. I'd agree that Cersei/Jaime have both strong narcissistic tendencies, and especially Jaime makes it clear that social norms and rules that bind 'normal people' do not apply to him (and this isn't a 'family thing' there as it is with the Targaryens where they, as the rulers of the society set out special rules for themselves, it is personal thing rooted in Jaime's view of his own specialness).

10 hours ago, teej6 said:

You call Arya a psychopath, but her character is shown to clearly have a conscience in her POV chapters, she can distinguish between right and wrong, she feels remorse, and she can empathize with random strangers -- all traits noticeably absent in psychopaths.

This is why this is a spectrum. The way George writes the murders of Dareon and especially Raff (but also the insurance guy) is the way one would describe a psychopath murdering somebody. Arya is perfectly calm, she knows what she is doing, and she shows neither remorse nor regret in any of those cases. She really thrives at it. Arya Stark could murder a person as easily as I take a shower or wash the dishes. And that's not normal behavior.

I'm not sure if George cares about stuff like that, but from what I learned the process of becoming a psychopath usually extends until the age of fifteen. So technically Arya could, if she got proper therapy, revert back to her normal self, start to process emotions differently than she does since AGoT/ACoK - the whole shutting down process, becoming 'a mouse', disappearing behind a mask of normalcy, etc. in the face of great trauma is also all part of such a development. People who acquiring psychopathic qualities usually go through traumas (which don't have to be as severe as Arya's) and then deal with them in a certain way that is essentially the same as Arya's.

I don't know if all this is intentional or accidental on George's part, but it is clearly all there. One also has this kind of rationale on the side of Littlefinger's teachings to Sansa - a lie is not bad if it is well-intentioned, poison is not bad if it is given for a good reason, etc.

10 hours ago, teej6 said:

You are confusing empathy with sympathy. Empathy is not something you can feel for everyone as you need to put yourself in the person's shoes to be able to do that. On the other hand, you can sympathize with most anyone. It isn't easy to feel empathy for a person whose character does not conform with your values or morals. For instance, I can feel sympathy for a mass murderer who is about to be executed but I feel no empathy for him. Similarly, I definitely can feel sympathy for Cersei's plight during her walk of shame, but I do not feel empathy for her since I can't understand/justify any of her vile actions (as there is no justification), and as I feel she brought the ugly situation upon herself by her own misdeeds. 

Well, I used the word 'empathize' there because I actually did put myself in Cersei's shoes during her walk, and I think every reader did that due to the way the chapter is written - unless one very deliberately distanced herself from the character and chapter there, and just glanced through it, etc.

Whether you are affected as much by what happened there as I was, I don't know, but I really would not describe as merely sympathizing.

We use the word empathy when we see a person in pain and try to help/comfort them because we inadvertently put ourselves in their shoes - and that's also what well-written fiction does. That's how our mirror neurons work if they do work properly. And if they do work properly it doesn't really matter whether Hitler or the some nice old lady is attacked by wild dogs out there - we go out there and try to help. We are affected by things like that. Who the person is doesn't matter on the emotional level.

Your own values and morals actually have nothing to do with that - or if they do, if you can only empathize with people who follow your own rules, then you would have to process emotions very strangely. I mean, you don't know everybody very intimately - it is clear that people who have hurt you, personally, very much wouldn't trigger the same emotional reaction in you when you see them hurt, but just people who don't follow your moral code, or who have hurt people you don't know or care about, should trigger the same reactions in you as just the next stranger.

9 hours ago, Starkz said:

@Lord Varys Ceaser was both a great leader and politician... when he took over as dictator Rome was in ruin and starving, he brought them back from the brink. Regardless we’ll have to agree to disagree as I believe there’s a bit more to being considered a good ruler/bad ruler besides people trying to kill you.

Guys, we don't discuss Caesar here, but if Lincoln (who I don't think was a bad politician just because he was murdered) had been murdered by a significant portion of his own Congress (not the representatives from the south, but the actual Union members) then we would all agree that he was a bad politician because he failed to get his own legislature on board (unless, of course, they murdered him for reasons that had nothing to do with any of his policies).

Caesar was murdered because of the policies he tried to implement and for those he had already implemented, and he was killed by people he himself (wrongly) thought were his friends. This shows poor judgment on his part, just as it was poor judgment on Jon's part.

And this goes also for Daenerys. She, too, surrounded her with people who plotted to poison her. We don't yet know whose involved but it is quite clear her own husband was part of that conspiracy.

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I don't think you're supposed to uncritically enjoy it though. At least not in this series. GRRM frames vengeance negatively.

ASoIaF isn't a Tarantino revenge movie, and comparing it to things like that is, well, not leading anywhere. I actually do enjoy such movies (and I really look forward to Cat making Jaime watch while she kill Genna and Emmon) but those kind of things are not the point of this series. They are very wrong in this setting, and the author actually use sane people (like Doran Martell or, especially, Ellaria Sand) to make clear where vengeance leads.

In fact, it is pretty obvious that the entire War of the Five Kings - especially on part of the 'good guys' - was utterly pointless and leading nowhere. Robb marching down to save or avenge his father instead of preparing for the Others is dead wrong. The bickering of the Baratheons, real or false, the Ironborn dreams of conquest, etc. - it is all dead wrong. As is continuing this war now that winter has come. It is even wrong than the war that has come before.

[Lollygag]

GRRM does seem to value justice. But justice =/= revenge or vengeance. 

Justice is about balance, law, order. Revenge and vengeance is about inflicting harm or retribution, often for its own sake and with no attention paid to reestablishing fairness or order. The view of revenge and vengeance is consistently and extremely negative. Arya's at no risk of becoming No One from the FM. She is at risk of becoming No One if she doesn't turn from so much focus on revenge and vengeance. Justice is good in its proper forms, but revenge and vengeance can leave you with nothing left.  It's a common theme in books, tv, movies. The show Broadchurch handles it very well. There are only so many hours in a day. If you're about inflicting pain, this necessarily takes away from more positive things. But justice in pursuit of reestablishing order and balance can be worthy if it's done right. 

But my point is that these terms shouldn't be used interchangeably. 

jus·tice

[ˈjəstəs]

NOUN

1. just behavior or treatment.

   "a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"

   synonyms: fairness · justness · fair play · fair-mindedness · equity · equitableness ·

   [more]

   • the quality of being fair and reasonable.
     "the justice of his case"
     synonyms: validity · justification · soundness · well-foundedness · legitimacy ·

     [more]
   • the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this.
     "a tragic miscarriage of justice"
     synonyms: judicial proceedings · administration of the law
2. a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the Supreme Court of a country or state.

   synonyms: judge · magistrate · His/Her/Your Honor · Law Lord · Lord Justice ·

   [more]

 

 

re·venge

[rəˈvenj]

NOUN

1. the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.

   "other spurned wives have taken public revenge on their husbands"

   synonyms: vengeance · retribution · retaliation · reprisal · requital · recrimination ·

   [more]

VERB

literary

1. inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to (someone else).

   "it's a pity he chose that way to revenge his sister"

 

 

venge·ance

[ˈvenjəns]

NOUN

1. punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.

   synonyms: revenge · avengement · retribution · retributive justice · retaliation · requital · reprisal · counterstroke · comeback · nemesis · satisfaction · an eye for an eye (and a tooth for a tooth) ·

   [more]

 

 

[teej6]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I used the word 'empathize' there because I actually did put myself in Cersei's shoes during her walk, and I think every reader did that due to the way the chapter is written - unless one very deliberately distanced herself from the character and chapter there, and just glanced through it, etc.

Whether you are affected as much by what happened there as I was, I don't know, but I really would not describe as merely sympathizing.

We use the word empathy when we see a person in pain and try to help/comfort them because we inadvertently put ourselves in their shoes - and that's also what well-written fiction does. That's how our mirror neurons work if they do work properly. And if they do work properly it doesn't really matter whether Hitler or the some nice old lady is attacked by wild dogs out there - we go out there and try to help. We are affected by things like that. Who the person is doesn't matter on the emotional level.

Your own values and morals actually have nothing to do with that - or if they do, if you can only empathize with people who follow your own rules, then you would have to process emotions very strangely. I mean, you don't know everybody very intimately - it is clear that people who have hurt you, personally, very much wouldn't trigger the same emotional reaction in you when you see them hurt, but just people who don't follow your moral code, or who have hurt people you don't know or care about, should trigger the same reactions in you as just the next stranger.

Again, most people do not empathize with mass murderers and definitely do not empathize with evil fictional characters. That’s not how peoples brains work. If you can empathize with Hitler as you say, you must be a great empath. Kudos to you. Although, strange that you can do it for a character as vile as Cersei but not for Arya, a traumatized child who is trying to survive in a brutal world. 

[Starkz]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Guys, we don't discuss Caesar here, but if Lincoln (who I don't think was a bad politician just because he was murdered) had been murdered by a significant portion of his own Congress (not the representatives from the south, but the actual Union members) then we would all agree that he was a bad politician because he failed to get his own legislature on board (unless, of course, they murdered him for reasons that had nothing to do with any of his policies).

Caesar was murdered because of the policies he tried to implement and for those he had already implemented, and he was killed by people he himself (wrongly) thought were his friends. This shows poor judgment on his part, just as it was poor judgment on Jon's part.

We wouldn’t all be saying Lincoln was a bad politician if some of his Congress tried to kill him. Your point of view here is that if some people that you are involved with try to kill you it automatically is your own fault and you’re a bad leader/politician in this case. What if some of his Congress was extremely racist and killed him for emancipating the slaves, aka John Booth except he was in Congress. You would still say he was a bad politician/leader because an extremely racist person killed him that was in Congress? It’s not as though Lincoln, or Jon, can choose everyone that is in a position of power. Marsh had already been Lord of Stewards and extremely xenophobic towards the Wildlings, Widlings Jon was deciding to save. You don’t measure the success of leaders based on a small proportion of biased individuals who tried to kill them. You measure success based on what they’ve done and accomplished, not how some members feel about what they’re doing.

Also Ceaser was killed because he was going to rid Rome of the Senate and establish a Monarchy with himself as ruler, so the Senate retaliated and killed him, though it didn’t do them much good.

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Again, most people do not empathize with mass murderers and definitely do not empathize with evil fictional characters. That’s not how peoples brains work. If you can empathize with Hitler as you say, you must be a great empath. Kudos to you. Although, strange that you can do it for a character as vile as Cersei but not for Arya, a traumatized child who is trying to survive in a brutal world. 

I would not empathize with Hitler or Cersei in any possible situation, only when I'm in there head in a situation like the walk of shame - or, say, the moment Joffrey is killed before her eyes (we don't get her POV there, but it should have been heartbreaking moment).

I also do empathize with Arya - but not when she murders people. The way the Raff thing is written I empathize with the victim in the scene there, not the murderess. And it is not written in a way that one should emotionally be on Arya's side there - the reader is supposed to be abhorred by how she does what she does and how little she feels while doing it.

And I really don't think I'm under any obligation to root or cheer for people killing other people, never mind how their family name is or that they are supposedly 'the heroes' of this story.

I'm the first to say that Arya should get proper treatment for her traumas - but the way to do that is not to enact her revenge fantasies. That's only going to make things worse. She is going to become indistinguishable from the people she killed. At least on the outside. And if she does this kind of work too long even on the inside.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Starkz said:

We wouldn’t all be saying Lincoln was a bad politician if some of his Congress tried to kill him. Your point of view here is that if some people that you are involved with try to kill you it automatically is your own fault and you’re a bad leader/politician in this case. What if some of his Congress was extremely racist and killed him for emancipating the slaves, aka John Booth except he was in Congress. You would still say he was a bad politician/leader because an extremely racist person killed him that was in Congress? It’s not as though Lincoln, or Jon, can choose everyone that is in a position of power. Marsh had already been Lord of Stewards and extremely xenophobic towards the Wildlings, Widlings Jon was deciding to save. You don’t measure the success of leaders based on a small proportion of biased individuals who tried to kill them. You measure success based on what they’ve done and accomplished, not how some members feel about what they’re doing.

Also Ceaser was killed because he was going to rid Rome of the Senate and establish a Monarchy with himself as ruler, so the Senate retaliated and killed him, though it didn’t do them much good.

No, that's not the point of view I have. My point of view is that if a significant portion of your own government plots against you (and successfully assassinates you) and you should have been able to see that coming you are no good leader.

That is pretty easy to understand.

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I also do empathize with Arya - but not when she murders people. The way the Raff thing is written I empathize with the victim in the scene there, not the murderess. And it is not written in a way that one should emotionally be on Arya's side there - the reader is supposed to be abhorred by how she does what she does and how little she feels while doing it.

I'm not so sure about that... I'd say one of Martin's many talents is writing scenes like this in a way that will make different people react/feel differently about it. In other words, I don't believe the reader is supposed to feel one way or another, but rather to think and ponder these things. Just my 2p, of course.

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's not the point of view I have. My point of view is that if a significant portion of your own government plots against you (and successfully assassinates you) and you should have been able to see that coming you are no good leader.

That is pretty easy to understand.

Well, I disagree. But more to the point, what is a "significant portion of your own government"? A smashing majority? Or 50% + 1? Or 2/3? And are we talking about a specific book scene, like the Ides of Marsh? Because if we are, I'll say that as of now we don't know if the conspirators make up a "significant portion" of the men at CB. And IMHO they don't, not by a long shot. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

43 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, I disagree. But more to the point, what is a "significant portion of your own government"? A smashing majority? Or 50% + 1? Or 2/3? And are we talking about a specific book scene, like the Ides of Marsh? Because if we are, I'll say that as of now we don't know if the conspirators make up a "significant portion" of the men at CB. And IMHO they don't, not by a long shot. 

Given Marsh would have be able rally the majority of Slynt's followers(who was a viable contender for the position of LC before Sam tricked Malister and Pyke into backing Jon) a significant portion of the watch at CB should have quite the following their among Marsh's followers.. And given Jon is bringing the same group who have been torturing and killing their brothers(hell Jon remarks how Jeor himself would have balked letting the wildlings that followed Mance in-not surprising since he's had a few female relatives kidnapped  from their home and forced to be the wife of a raider), I imagine Marsh's support among the black brothers swelled as Jon's popularity(something that was not really high at the start of his reign),  decreased.  

I think there's  very good reason to think the vast majority of black brothers  would either support Marsh or at least him taking out Jon. 

I mean it should tell you something the only positive reactions to Jon prounancememt actually noted by Jon of going to war with House Bolton(something Jon makes clear to those in attendance  should he do so it'd be breaking his oaths)  was from the wildlings in attendance. 

[Lord Varys]

38 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'm not so sure about that... I'd say one of Martin's many talents is writing scenes like this in a way that will make different people react/feel differently about it. In other words, I don't believe the reader is supposed to feel one way or another, but rather to think and ponder these things. Just my 2p, of course.

In most scenes involving a murder it is pretty clear. Just think about the Red Wedding or even the hanging of Merrett or the murder of Kevan. We do empathize with those that are killed, not those who commit the act - never mind whether those killed actually 'deserve' their fate by the laws and customs of the world they live in or not.

And it is quite clear that George - just as any other - tries to trigger certain emotions in his readers. He doesn't sit there and provides us with empty words which we then fill with emotion at random.

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, I disagree. But more to the point, what is a "significant portion of your own government"? A smashing majority? Or 50% + 1? Or 2/3? And are we talking about a specific book scene, like the Ides of Marsh? Because if we are, I'll say that as of now we don't know if the conspirators make up a "significant portion" of the men at CB. And IMHO they don't, not by a long shot. 

We were talking about the Caesar example which included, I think, a cabal of dozens (70-80) senators who murdered Caesar. That's a significant portion.

What's more important, is that the people involved were people close to him - like Brutus - and others he actually pardoned. That indicates a faulty judge of character on his part.

In Jon's case his fault clearly is to not even consider the possibility that Marsh might be doing what he did, never mind that he had ample reason to consider such a possibility. This is stupidity, ignorance, and incompetence on his part.

It is a crucial part of military life that your subordinate officers actually support your policies. Jon wasn't the Hand - like Ned - who had to work with the other men on the Small Council the king appointed. He was the Lord Commander of the NW and it was his decision to keep Marsh and the other officers - and while that looked like a good idea back in ASoS it becomes a bad idea as soon as it is clear that Marsh opposes too many of Jon's policies. The moment where Jon's incompetence in this field is most obvious is when he thinks by himself that those men are of no use to him because he knows what they will say before they actually say it. That's the moment when it is clear that they should be all replaced with men who could actually bring in new and interesting/challenging perspectives Jon did not previously think about himself. Even if we grant Jon his naiveté there (that he never did think they might contemplate killing him) then it is still an awful decision to keep men in high office who are of no use to you as advisers.

A ruler/leader cannot, of course, prepare or foresee that some subject/follower of his uses the opportunity he is out in the open to kill him. But if such an attempt comes out of his family, his friends, and his lieutenants and people he interacts with each day on a personal and professional then not foreseeing anything like that is a flaw in your ruling ability.

It belongs to statecraft to actually (more or less) correctly predict the actions and decisions of the people you deal with - both friends and foes. If you can't do that, you are not good at ruling. You will never, in fact, rise to any position of influence and power in a society where you are not born to the purple. The reason why so many kings in history sucked at being king or were mediocre at best is that they did not really understood how politics worked - they did not have to. They were born to power and didn't need to learn how to manipulate people - or predict (or even care) what they might think or do next.

How many men are in camp Marsh is pretty irrelevant to any of this. Having a man like Marsh - who did assassinate Jon - basically as his trusted second-in-command is a huge mistake on Jon's part. Even if Marsh was aided and abetted only by the handful of people who actually did the deed.

But honestly - what textual evidence indicates to you that Jon has a massive following among the men of the Watch? Why do you think the men there would be on his side and not on Marsh's?

The main reason why I think Marsh must have essentially nine out of ten men in his camp (some willing to support the assassination; others willing to accept it after the fact) is simply the fact that Marsh is never described as a very courageous or brave individual. He would only do a thing like that if can be sure that the majority is behind him. And as Lord Steward he leads the largest order in the Watch by far. The rangers are pretty much all dead or not at CB, the builders are more specialized people (which means they numbers should be fewer than the stewards) most of which are occupied rebuilding the abandoned castles, making it very likely that Marsh's people make up 80% of the men at CB.

[Starkz]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's not the point of view I have. My point of view is that if a significant portion of your own government plots against you (and successfully assassinates you) and you should have been able to see that coming you are no good leader.

That is pretty easy to understand.

How is any leader suppose to know/see with great certainty that some people close to them are going to kill them? And a significate portion? Marsh and a couple stewards are a significant portion of the government of the NW? Furthermore it’s not as though the majority of the men at the Wall are upstanding citizens/ people.

[Starkz]

26 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Given Marsh would have be able rally the majority of Slynt's followers(who was a viable contender for the position of LC before Sam tricked Malister and Pyke into backing Jon) a significant portion of the watch at CB should have quite the following their among Marsh's followers.. And given Jon is bringing the same group who have been torturing and killing their brothers(hell Jon remarks how Jeor himself would have balked letting the wildlings that followed Mance in-not surprising since he's had a few female relatives kidnapped  from their home and forced to be the wife of a raider), I imagine Marsh's support among the black brothers swelled as Jon's popularity(something that was not really high at the start of his reign),  decreased.  

I think there's  very good reason to think the vast majority of black brothers  would either support Marsh or at least him taking out Jon. 

I mean it should tell you something the only positive reactions to Jon prounancememt actually noted by Jon of going to war with House Bolton(something Jon makes clear to those in attendance  should he do so it'd be breaking his oaths)  was from the wildlings in attendance. 

We can’t be sure of Marsh’s following until the next book comes out. So far all we have to go off is him and a couple of stewards which is not a “large majority of the government”. We don’t know how anyone will react to the assassination attempt or if Marsh will even be alive afterwards.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Starkz said:

How is any leader suppose to know/see with great certainty that some people close to them are going to kill them? And a significate portion? Marsh and a couple stewards are a significant portion of the government of the NW? Furthermore it’s not as though the majority of the men at the Wall are upstanding citizens/ people.

By actually trying to find out what the people you lead think about you and are willing/capable of doing? By using spies and agents and informers? By naming people to high office you have good reason to trust they are your people?

What good reason did Jon Snow to think Bowen Marsh would support him after he read the Pink Letter? Or even before that? Is there any indication during the second half of ADwD that Marsh comes across as a man Jon Snow could trust?

I don't think so.

[Starkz]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

By actually trying to find out what the people you lead think about you and are willing/capable of doing? By using spies and agents and informers? By naming people to high office you have good reason to trust they are your people?

What good reason did Jon Snow to think Bowen Marsh would support him after he read the Pink Letter? Or even before that? Is there any indication during the second half of ADwD that Marsh comes across as a man Jon Snow could trust?

I don't think so.

So by being a paranoid leader like Aerys? Jon did name people to positions he trusted and yet a couple posts ago you were complaining about it, hypocritical much? Why would Jon care for Marsh’s support? Jon notes Marsh leaving the room and says he cares not that he doesn’t need or want him. I’m not sure if Jon has ever listened to anything Marsh has ever said, Marsh tells Jon to do the opposite of everything he does, naming Satin steward, Wildlings coming south etc. Marsh never supported Jon, all he did was tolerate him and Jon tolerated Marsh in return.

[Morte]

13 hours ago, Starkz said:

@Lord Varys Ceaser was both a great leader and politician... when he took over as dictator Rome was in ruin and starving, he brought them back from the brink. Regardless we’ll have to agree to disagree as I believe there’s a bit more to being considered a good ruler/bad ruler besides people trying to kill you.

No, he was not. That's why he was planing the next war already, because he couldn't solve the problems within. It was only the calm before the storm: The res publica was still in ruins, he had no vision on how to reform it, how to in-cooperate the provinces, how to reform and build a proper and working administration, etc. etc. pp. His were the great gestures, but not the dry, hard and tedious work that is called politics.

He was a brilliant general and orator, a great leader with huge charisma, intelligent, smart and well educated - and maybe even a grammar-nazi. He was however not a great politician.

You mistake him for Augustus, his nephew and testamentary heir and adoptive son.

[Starkz]

11 minutes ago, Morte said:

No, he was not. That's why he was planing the next war already, because he couldn't solve the problems within. It was only the calm before the storm: The res publica was still in ruins, he had no vision on how to reform it, how to in-cooperate the provinces, how to reform and build a proper and working administration, etc. etc. pp. His were the great gestures, but not the dry, hard and tedious work that is called politics.

He was a brilliant general and orator, a great leader with huge charisma, intelligent, smart and well educated - and maybe even a grammar-nazi. He was however not a great politician.

You mistake him for Augustus, his nephew and testamentary heir and adoptive son.

You’re kidding right? Julius Ceaser was one of the greatest leaders and politicians ever. Rome was in ruins because of the Senate and Julius implemented a ton of reforms that brought Rome back from the brink and prospering again. The Senate was as dysfunctional as it gets and Julius knew this and took charge. You really need to do some research on Ceaser if you think he was a bad politician. Reforming calendar, relationship with Eqypt and other rulers, turning Rome from a republic to a monarch etc. Do I have to go on?