Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tyrion1991

Jon is a hypocrite

Recommended Posts

At the war council in episode 4 the agreed upon plan was that the allies would bottle Cersei up in Kings Landing with a conventional medieval siege. With the idea that the people would eventually turn on her. This, unsurprisingly, being Jons bright idea.

However Jon has no reason to believe this will succeed. The riots in KL didn’t overthrow the almost non existent garrison of the city. Now, it has the GC, Ironborn and presumably the entirety of Tywins army; more than enough to discourage any uprising by unarmed civilians.

This would likely create a situation similar to what happens to Astapor in the books. A million people who would die slowly of starvation and disease. Hunger weakens people to sickness and it would kill the elderly and the children first. Food would go to Cersei’s army and the people would starve.

Even IF a general revolt happened it would still involve horrendous blood letting. Unarmed civilians against tens of thousands of armed soldiers. They would likely be strong enough to crush any sporadic uprising.

He is risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people here; if not the entire city. Yet it’s presented as the good guy solution compared to a direct assault to end the siege quickly. 

I find it really disappointing that the series prided itself on being morally grey and grounded but now hand waves the implications of “the good man” and his actions. I am sure Machiavelli had sieges in mind when he wrote the Prince and Jon is using fear here to get what he wants. 

So Jon is being a hypocrite since his actions would have led to women and children starving to death and dying of disease in droves. Far more than if Dany had just destroyed the defences and not snapped. 

But I doubt they would have had Jon enter the city and see all the babies whose mothers had smothered them rather than see them starve during the siege? We can’t be having that now can we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 11:06 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

At the war council in episode 4 the agreed upon plan was that the allies would bottle Cersei up in Kings Landing with a conventional medieval siege. With the idea that the people would eventually turn on her. This, unsurprisingly, being Jons bright idea.

However Jon has no reason to believe this will succeed. The riots in KL didn’t overthrow the almost non existent garrison of the city. Now, it has the GC, Ironborn and presumably the entirety of Tywins army; more than enough to discourage any uprising by unarmed civilians.

This would likely create a situation similar to what happens to Astapor in the books. A million people who would die slowly of starvation and disease. Hunger weakens people to sickness and it would kill the elderly and the children first. Food would go to Cersei’s army and the people would starve.

Even IF a general revolt happened it would still involve horrendous blood letting. Unarmed civilians against tens of thousands of armed soldiers. They would likely be strong enough to crush any sporadic uprising.

He is risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people here; if not the entire city. Yet it’s presented as the good guy solution compared to a direct assault to end the siege quickly. 

I find it really disappointing that the series prided itself on being morally grey and grounded but now hand waves the implications of “the good man” and his actions. I am sure Machiavelli had sieges in mind when he wrote the Prince and Jon is using fear here to get what he wants. 

So Jon is being a hypocrite since his actions would have led to women and children starving to death and dying of disease in droves. Far more than if Dany had just destroyed the defences and not snapped. 

But I doubt they would have had Jon enter the city and see all the babies whose mothers had smothered them rather than see them starve during the siege? We can’t be having that now can we?

We get it, you hate the character Jon. You can stop creating pretty much the same thread over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&D actually made the people run to KL, the Keep. Another misconception on their part. Food is mandatory in such scenario or they would not go in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has acted a little dumb this season. For instance, when she burnt Varys or when she threatened Sansa he should have seen the writing on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the series, Jon is just dumb. Hes not a hypocrite, theres nothing to suggest that he doesn't think his plan wont work and that the civilians would be able to force Cersei to surrender without bloodshed, that's actually very much Jons character. Naïve and a bit thick but good intentioned and happy to put his life on the line for the betterment of people. A great soldier but a terrible leader that gets lucky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chatty83 said:

In the series, Jon is just dumb. Hes not a hypocrite, theres nothing to suggest that he doesn't think his plan wont work and that the civilians would be able to force Cersei to surrender without bloodshed, that's actually very much Jons character. Naïve and a bit thick but good intentioned and happy to put his life on the line for the betterment of people. A great soldier but a terrible leader that gets lucky. 

He is an ok leader. He just should not be the general. He can be a colonel or brigadier general just not the main guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 4:06 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

At the war council in episode 4 the agreed upon plan was that the allies would bottle Cersei up in Kings Landing with a conventional medieval siege. With the idea that the people would eventually turn on her. This, unsurprisingly, being Jons bright idea.

However Jon has no reason to believe this will succeed. The riots in KL didn’t overthrow the almost non existent garrison of the city. Now, it has the GC, Ironborn and presumably the entirety of Tywins army; more than enough to discourage any uprising by unarmed civilians.

This would likely create a situation similar to what happens to Astapor in the books. A million people who would die slowly of starvation and disease. Hunger weakens people to sickness and it would kill the elderly and the children first. Food would go to Cersei’s army and the people would starve.

Even IF a general revolt happened it would still involve horrendous blood letting. Unarmed civilians against tens of thousands of armed soldiers. They would likely be strong enough to crush any sporadic uprising.

He is risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people here; if not the entire city. Yet it’s presented as the good guy solution compared to a direct assault to end the siege quickly. 

I find it really disappointing that the series prided itself on being morally grey and grounded but now hand waves the implications of “the good man” and his actions. I am sure Machiavelli had sieges in mind when he wrote the Prince and Jon is using fear here to get what he wants. 

So Jon is being a hypocrite since his actions would have led to women and children starving to death and dying of disease in droves. Far more than if Dany had just destroyed the defences and not snapped. 

But I doubt they would have had Jon enter the city and see all the babies whose mothers had smothered them rather than see them starve during the siege? We can’t be having that now can we?

At least he knows what “hypocrite” means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, KingMudd said:

We get it, you hate the character Jon. You can stop creating pretty much the same thread over and over again.

Admittedly, the character is rather difficult to like.

Not sure if it's the writing, the dialogue, or acting, but most of his arc is just plain, one-note and boring in the show. Lacks depth or development, makes tons of dumb decisions and his relationship with Dany is portrayed so poorly, most of their scenes together were laughable.

Aside from that, it's kind of hard to even discuss the merit of military decisions of each character, when pretty much everything could have been solved by a magical face-swapping assassin (which is why i think Arya will never go back to being Arya in the books).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dokivi said:

Admittedly, the character is rather difficult to like.

Not sure if it's the writing, the dialogue, or acting, but most of his arc is just plain, one-note and boring in the show. Lacks depth or development, makes tons of dumb decisions and his relationship with Dany is portrayed so poorly, most of their scenes together were laughable.

And yet in the books, he's the opposite. He's easy to like. He's smart, warm, and loyal.

Such a disconnect speaks more to the adapters than to the real story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

And yet in the books, he's the opposite. He's easy to like. He's smart, warm, and loyal.

Such a disconnect speaks more to the adapters than to the real story.

I love tv show Jon. Hopefully I will like Book Jon too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I love tv show Jon. Hopefully I will like Book Jon too. 

“The queen is angry, too,” Jon told his uncle in a low, quiet voice. “Father took the king down to the crypts this afternoon. The queen didn't want him to go.”

Benjen gave Jon a careful, measuring look. “You don’t miss much, do you Jon?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

“The queen is angry, too,” Jon told his uncle in a low, quiet voice. “Father took the king down to the crypts this afternoon. The queen didn't want him to go.”

Benjen gave Jon a careful, measuring look. “You don’t miss much, do you Jon?”

 

I loved Benjen. Wanted more of that Jon and Uncle Ben relationship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The peak of Jon’s idiocy was when he killed Dany, went to Grey Worm and surrendered because "honour". Why not just tip toe out of there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

The peak of Jon’s idiocy was when he killed Dany, went to Grey Worm and surrendered because "honour". Why not just tip toe out of there?

Because that's not him. What Jon done was completely in character and it's what he would have done all throguhout the series. It's the same reason Ned had for warning Cersei that he was going to tell Robert about the incest and it's the same reason Robb had for beheading Rickard Karstark. All three could have just not bothered but thier honour made them do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, KingMudd said:

Because that's not him. What Jon done was completely in character and it's what he would have done all throguhout the series. It's the same reason Ned had for warning Cersei that he was going to tell Robert about the incest and it's the same reason Robb had for beheading Rickard Karstark. All three could have just not bothered but thier honour made them do it.

Jon has violated his honour before and he isn’t as steadfast in it as Robb and Ned. When Robb beheaded Karstark you can see he did it with full conviction. In a similar setup when Jon beheads Janos Slynt he hesitates twice as Slynt speaks his mind.  He broke his NW vow when he laid with Ygritte. Then he also violated it again to go help Robb before he was stopped. And depending on the interpretation of the ending, he also technically violated his punishment to go live with the free folk permanently just because the higher authorities were his family and they wouldn’t enforce the order. 

If Jon is cheeky enough to violate the punishment by running away with the free folk as it’s not serious, he should have no qualms just running away from the scene. It’s  not like he has done any crime anyway. He is also an idiot. Didn’t he realise Grey Worm would kill him on the spot? He was asking to be killed. The only reason he survived is because of plot armour. 

Edited by Kaapstad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaapstad said:

Jon has violated his honour before and he isn’t as steadfast in it as Robb and Ned

I agree, but running away after murdering Dany, Jon has never been that blatantly dishonorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I agree, but running away after murdering Dany, Jon has never been that blatantly dishonorable.

He exhibited Ned Stark levels of stupidity there. Telling Grey Worm about Dany’s death was as stupid as Ned talking to Cersei about incest. Both signed an instant death warrant. The only difference was Ned didn’t have plot armour as the story needed to continue while Jon did as the story needed to end. 

There was really nothing dishonourable about killing her when she was threatening to burn cities alive. At this point I expected Jon to cast aside his honour as that’s the main difference between Ned/Robb and Jon. The former effectively committed suicide with their honourable acts. Jon was ready to violate his honour multiple times in the story if something good was going to come out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

He exhibited Ned Stark levels of stupidity there. Telling Grey Worm about Dany’s death was as stupid as Ned talking to Cersei about incest. Both signed an instant death warrant. The only difference was Ned didn’t have plot armour as the story needed to continue while Jon did as the story needed to end. 

There was really nothing dishonourable about killing her when she was threatening to burn cities alive. At this point I expected Jon to cast aside his honour as that’s the main difference between Ned/Robb and Jon. The former effectively committed suicide with their honourable acts. Jon was ready to violate his honour multiple times in the story if something good was going to come out of it. 

I could make arguments for and against this statement. 

But the one thing I am not ambivalent about is that sneaking off after killing her would certainly be dishonorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

I could make arguments for and against this statement. 

But the one thing I am not ambivalent about is that sneaking off after killing her would certainly be dishonorable.

He is already viewed as dishonourable by those who survived Kings Landing. From their view point, he assisted Dany in her genocide and rapes and he made the Northmen culpable to that. At this point, him killing her and sneaking off means nothing in the grand scheme of things. His reputation is already damaged beyond repair. There is no dishonour in sneaking away as did Dany surrender after she killed so many innocents? On the contrary she started going on about more liberation. Nothing wrong to sneak away after killing such a person. 

Not to mention the person to whom he surrenders is  not at all honourable. He killed unarmed soldiers because his girlfriend died. 

Edited by Kaapstad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

He is already viewed as dishonourable by those who survived Kings Landing. From their view point, he assisted Dany in her genocide and rapes and he made the Northmen culpable to that. At this point, him killing her and sneaking off means nothing in the grand scheme of things. His reputation is already damaged beyond repair. 

To others yes. But Jon surrendered because he believed it was the right thing. He probably wanted to be able to look at himself in the mirror.

18 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

There is no dishonour in sneaking away as did Dany surrender after she killed so many innocents? On the contrary she started going on about more liberation. Nothing wrong to sneak away after killing such a person. 

I disagree. Just because the other person is terrible, it doesnt justify Jon doing something that would be beneath him.

18 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

Not to mention the person to whom he surrenders is  not at all honourable. 

I disagree. GW was just blindly following Dany. He may be misguided and stupid. Not dishonorable.

18 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

He killed unarmed soldiers because his girlfriend died. 

He was blindly following dany, although I agree, missandei dying had a lot to do with it. But he would've followed Dany even if missandei were alive imo.

Edited by Apoplexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×