Jon and Dany's similarities in ADWD, and why they're some of the few potentially good rulers

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So, here's a fun thing I noticed. Jon and Dany's arks and central conflict in ADWD are veeery similar. More exactly they are about the fundamental problem of making peace.

- Dany is struggling to make peace after a very easy conquest of Slaver's Bay (Liberation CB is op in my opinion) . However she has major problems, both inside her own organization between the extreme Shavepate faction and the more moderate Green Grace, and in dealing with those she wants to make peace with.

- Jon similarly is struggling to make peace between the Watch and the wildlings so that they may face the Long Night together. However he too deals with major problems both internal with the likes of Marsh, Thorne and Slynt, and more external, with the wildlings, Stannis and the Boltons. 

Crucially both stories end in pretty much the same way, the 2 of them well and properly fucked. Jon is currently trapped inside Ghost, while Dany is stuck in the middle of nowhere literally shitting her guts out. However despite the sacrifices their paths took them, their efforts did/will pay off. Barry and Shavepate were able to make common ground and keep Meereen together, while the wildlings, the Queen's men and the loyal Black Brothers will probably make short work of Marsh and the rest. Further more, soon in TWOW, there are lessons on the enemies one should not make peace, the Boltons for Jon and the Yunkish for Dany.

All this serves to one of the most important themes in ASOIAF, well put by Petyr Baelish of all people

Quote

We only make peace with our enemies. That's why it's called making peace.

And that is a lesson any ruler wanting to patch things up should know, but so few do. Jon and Dany know it, Edmure knows it too, and that's pretty much it.  Here's hoping Dany remembers this lesson and doesn't go full fire and blood on Westeros.

Anyways, what do you think, are these parallels intentional and hinting at an overarching theme, or is it just a coincidence?

[Moiraine Sedai]

Making peace should be an option but it is not always the best for every situation.  The two character arcs in ADWD are quite different.  The conflict is internal for the top characters but they face different demons.  

Jon's conflict involve choosing between duty, love, honor, and family.  He also has unresolved feelings of abandonment.  All the poor decisions he made, killing Slynt and picking a fight with the Bolton's, were driven by these emotional turmoil.  Jon is a free spirit by nature and found his place with the Wildlings.  Their disregard for rules is very similar to his own.  That kindred spirit make him sympathetic to the free folk and turned him against the hard line rule followers such as Bowen.  His deep love for the one person in Winterfell who gave him unconditional acceptance compromise his ability to lead the Watch.

Daenerys has a different conflict.  Hers has to do with finding the appropriate use of force and the right degree of force.  She is learning to control the dragon within. Childhood trauma, like being traded off to the Dothraki and losing her family, complicates matters.  Most would-be conquerors would walk away from Slaver's Bay and get on the business of conquering.  But her experience give her sympathy towards the downtrodden masses in captivity.  She refused to harm her hostages and that makes for a compassionate person but a poor conqueror.  These conflicting feelings make it difficult to have consistency.  Daario, Shavepate, Barristan, and Reznak give conflicting advice based on where they come from.  She has the unenviable task of weighing their advice.  But the desire of saving the slaves, reminiscent of Clarice Starling, gets in the way of making the hard decisions needed to fight the Harpy.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

49 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

All the poor decisions he made, killing Slynt

It wasn't a poor decision. It was a very good one. What did he lose by killing him?

50 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Daenerys has a different conflict.  Hers has to do with finding the appropriate use of force and the right degree of force.

I know what you meant to say, but I feel that her choices being force or force is a great sum up of her probable destination in TWOW.

51 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

But the desire of saving the slaves, reminiscent of Clarice Starling, gets in the way of making the hard decisions needed to fight the Harpy.

Well hello Silence of the Lambs Reference. Now I only halfway agree with you here. The needs to help the innocent to make up for past powerlessness, is clearly the same, but in Silence of the Lambs it's clearly a good thing, were as in Meereen... well it's complicated.

[TedBear]

Many people talk about the parallels between Dany and Jon, is it just me who think I see many parallels between Dany and Bran?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

16 minutes ago, TedBear said:

Many people talk about the parallels between Dany and Jon, is it just me who think I see many parallels between Dany and Bran?

God I hope not. I refuse to believe him being King is even a possibility after... the creature

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

2 hours ago, TedBear said:

Many people talk about the parallels between Dany and Jon, is it just me who think I see many parallels between Dany and Bran?

Agree.  They are the two most parallel characters in the saga. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

10 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

And that is a lesson any ruler wanting to patch things up should know, but so few do. Jon and Dany know it,

I’m not following you. When pressed on her values Dany chose war not for her people but for herself, to become some Idealized Targaryen who burns everything and takes no quarter. Jon was trying to prep for war while trying to iron out conflict and get others to make peace. But was Jon “at war” with them? Idk...he wasn’t even aware Marsh was his enemy and Ramsay wasn’t until he went off. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Martin said that Jon is the truest character. 

Dany is a megalomaniac in making.

So no.

[TheLastWolf]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Martin said that Jon is the truest character. 

Dany is a megalomaniac in making.

So no.

Try telling that to a certain forum faction. 

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

When pressed on her values Dany chose war not for her people but for herself, to become some Idealized Targaryen who burns everything and takes no quarter

A lot of Fairy Godmother Queen Dany worshippers disagree with you, but not me. Sadly true. 

And Alyn, not another Jon Dany thread! This is what, your 8th or so thread about them. Stark Targ. Jon Dany. First men Valyrians. If I didn't know you I'd have thought you were just another poster exploiting the conflict to garner more views, replies, content count increase and attention. But you sincerely want to discuss this, just too much

[Daeron the Daring]

32 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Try telling that to a certain forum faction. 

A lot of Fairy Godmother Queen Dany worshippers disagree with you, but not me. Sadly true. 

And Alyn, not another Jon Dany thread! This is what, your 8th or so thread about them. Stark Targ. Jon Dany. First men Valyrians. If I didn't know you I'd have thought you were just another poster exploiting the conflict to garner more views, replies, content count increase and attention. But you sincerely want to discuss this, just too much

Man, you're the most provocative person here. A single sign have you seen in this thread of any conflict? I doubt it.

I have not seen anyone in the most recent "StarkTarg" (let's say 20) threads being as provocative as you are. Just stop. 

Every single time a mistake made by a character you like comes into discussion you're just coming up with the "Oh, another Stark hate post, It's not even worth following, because it's just a feasting of the worshipers of Fairy Godmother Queen Daenerys" Dude, you're creating the conflict.

Who the fuck do you think does need this?

Not that I do not like the Starks. I'm a fan of Targaryens, yet I like the Starks too, in general (Some of them are between my favs too).

Anyway, @Alyn Oakenfist, while reading ADWD, I've always felt like the two are mostly going trough the same, having issues with their own leadership. From chapter to chapter, I've felt like the same issues came up for both, and this might continue too at the beginning of TWOW, as both will have to deal with their own "comebacks".

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Dany is a megalomaniac in making.

Is she? Born a tyrant? I'd like to hear why.

[Aldarion]

14 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Is she? Born a tyrant? I'd like to hear why.

Nobody is born a tyrant. But Daenerys has the makings of one:

1) She is likely Azor Ahai (so possibility of the messianic complex)

2) She has dragons (which confirm the above - and also make her less vulnerable to retribution)

3) She has utterly dedicated followers (so she does not need to restrict herself as much)

4) She finds compromise difficult (yes, she tries - but she also finds it unappealing, hates it and fails to see that the other side also hates it)

And out-of-universe, she is the only character whose enemies are unqestionably evil. Which makes me think that Martin is going for a "fallen hero" trope, where she will start burning slavers but nobody will think it bad because, hey, slavers... only for her to continue that approach outside the slaving areas as well, basically against anyone opposing her.

[Daeron the Daring]

18 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Nobody is born a tyrant. But Daenerys has the makings of one:

1) She is likely Azor Ahai (so possibility of the messianic complex)

2) She has dragons (which confirm the above - and also make her less vulnerable to retribution)

3) She has utterly dedicated followers (so she does not need to restrict herself as much)

4) She finds compromise difficult (yes, she tries - but she also finds it unappealing, hates it and fails to see that the other side also hates it)

And out-of-universe, she is the only character whose enemies are unqestionably evil. Which makes me think that Martin is going for a "fallen hero" trope, where she will start burning slavers but nobody will think it bad because, hey, slavers... only for her to continue that approach outside the slaving areas as well, basically against anyone opposing her.

Megalomaniac literally means being obsessed with your own power.

Being Azor Ahai does not make him instantly megalomaniac(Why would it, I don't understand). Nor does dragons(Again, why would it). On your third point, it's not about them, it's about her. Power does not make you osessed with power. I don't understand what you're trying to point out in your fourth point. 

And as your latest argument, I find it hard judging a character by something he did not do, or might do in the future.

And our friend litterally just said he was born this way, ignoring what we know about her childhood. So again, I'd like to see why you think this, @Free Northman Reborn

[Free Northman Reborn]

Not sure who supposedly said she was born that way. I certainly didn’t. I said she is one in making. Meaning she is on her way there.

Her whole Blood of the Dragon, right to rule ideology. Anyway, we all know how it turns out.

[Daeron the Daring]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure who supposedly said she was born that way. I certainly didn’t. I said she is one in making. Meaning she is on her way there.

Her whole Blood of the Dragon, right to rule ideology. Anyway, we all know how it turns out.

My bad then. I'm not a native english speaker, I tought "in making" means being born that way. I can see I was wrong. 

Many people tought they have a right to rule, did it made them megalomaniac? Ruling (aka. power) is what might make you megalomaniac, not the right to rule.

[Aldarion]

33 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Megalomaniac literally means being obsessed with your own power.

Being Azor Ahai does not make him instantly megalomaniac(Why would it, I don't understand). Nor does dragons(Again, why would it). On your third point, it's not about them, it's about her. Power does not make you osessed with power. I don't understand what you're trying to point out in your fourth point. 

And as your latest argument, I find it hard judging a character by something he did not do, or might do in the future.

And our friend litterally just said he was born this way, ignoring what we know about her childhood. So again, I'd like to see why you think this, @Free Northman Reborn

What he said:

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure who supposedly said she was born that way. I certainly didn’t. I said she is one in making. Meaning she is on her way there.

Her whole Blood of the Dragon, right to rule ideology. Anyway, we all know how it turns out.

Nobody said that she is, at this point, evil, megalomaniacal or just maniacal. However:

• Being Azor Ahai means that she is a religious figure, even a prophet. This means that a lot of people may start worshipping it, and being worshipped is never good for human psyche. Even if she tries to keep a grip on it, without external input to the contrary she will start losing sight of her own flaws and fallibility. And keep in mind, she is young - she is not Diocletian who declared himself a God-Emperor in order to stabilize Roman Empire, she will have been declared a prophetic saviour by her own followers.
• Possession of dragons is a bad thing in several ways. After they are grown, especially. Dragons immediately confer legitimacy, which means that she will face less opposition - which on one hand is a good thing because she may have more room for compromise. But if it goes too far, because she gets too much legitimacy or simply because people are afraid of flying, fire-breathing lizards, then people might not be willing to contradict her. Which gives her a free rein and reduces the need to restrict herself.
• Fact that her followers are utterly dedicated to her is also about her. Or rather, has implications for her. All good historical rulers have had to compromise: Basil II protected small landowners because he was not able to simply suppress the magnates. Matthias Corvinus likewise relied on minor nobility to overcome opposition from magnates. But what if they had absolutely dedicated followers, thus reducing need to compromise? What if they could have simply overcome opposition with flying, intelligent nukes? Or cow them with the mere fact of possession of such? Would they still have been good leaders? Human nature argues for "no". And even if Daenerys herself turns out good... what about successors?
• My fourth point is about her rule in Mereen: she finds compromise difficult, is too impatient and focuses on her failures without seeing how much she has actually already achieved. She wants quick solutions - I don't want to write an essay so I'll just drop links to a series which agrees with my position - you'll understand better what I'm getting at. Will she be able to resist the temptation to use dragons for that purpose once they are grown enough?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure who supposedly said she was born that way. I certainly didn’t. I said she is one in making. Meaning she is on her way there.

Her whole Blood of the Dragon, right to rule ideology. Anyway, we all know how it turns out.

This world is not a democracy.  Starks, Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells all believe they have the right to rule, based on bloodlines.  I’ve never understood why  Daenerys is meant to be the only one who doesn’t share this view.

 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

What he said:

Nobody said that she is, at this point, evil, megalomaniacal or just maniacal. However:

• Being Azor Ahai means that she is a religious figure, even a prophet. This means that a lot of people may start worshipping it, and being worshipped is never good for human psyche. Even if she tries to keep a grip on it, without external input to the contrary she will start losing sight of her own flaws and fallibility. And keep in mind, she is young - she is not Diocletian who declared himself a God-Emperor in order to stabilize Roman Empire, she will have been declared a prophetic saviour by her own followers.
• Possession of dragons is a bad thing in several ways. After they are grown, especially. Dragons immediately confer legitimacy, which means that she will face less opposition - which on one hand is a good thing because she may have more room for compromise. But if it goes too far, because she gets too much legitimacy or simply because people are afraid of flying, fire-breathing lizards, then people might not be willing to contradict her. Which gives her a free rein and reduces the need to restrict herself.
• Fact that her followers are utterly dedicated to her is also about her. Or rather, has implications for her. All good historical rulers have had to compromise: Basil II protected small landowners because he was not able to simply suppress the magnates. Matthias Corvinus likewise relied on minor nobility to overcome opposition from magnates. But what if they had absolutely dedicated followers, thus reducing need to compromise? What if they could have simply overcome opposition with flying, intelligent nukes? Or cow them with the mere fact of possession of such? Would they still have been good leaders? Human nature argues for "no". And even if Daenerys herself turns out good... what about successors?
• My fourth point is about her rule in Mereen: she finds compromise difficult, is too impatient and focuses on her failures without seeing how much she has actually already achieved. She wants quick solutions - I don't want to write an essay so I'll just drop links to a series which agrees with my position - you'll understand better what I'm getting at. Will she be able to resist the temptation to use dragons for that purpose once they are grown enough?

If she truly is Azhor Ahai then it becomes an objective fact that her opponents are in the wrong, and she’s destined to save the world.  That said, I’m sure there are many temptations that will come her way.

Adam Feldman’s POV is far too master-centric.  A peace which leaves the slavers firmly in charge is good news only for slavers (leaving aside that he ignores that they’re only waiting for the Volantenes to arrive, before re-enslaving the population).

[U. B. Cool]

If peace is the goal then Jon Snow messed up.  All he needed to do was stay out of Ramsay Bolton's business.  He is either slow enough to believe he could get away with sending his man, Mance Rayder, to help his sister or he knew the consequences and did it anyway.  @Moiraine Sedai is right on the money about Jon's conflict.  His was laid out in Game of Thrones, the conflict between love and duty.  Love is the death of duty and duty surely died in his case.  He is a capable soldier and swordsman as well as good friend to Samwell and the other boys.  But I am not sold on his leadership abilities.  Yea, peace is not 100% the answer when it will not lead to good, long term results for the most people.  In this case, peace with the Boltons would have been the right direction to take.  Helping Arya would help Arya but cause conflict that would get more people killed, people they need to fight the white walkers.  Jon was not facing self-doubt because he knows where his heart is and it is not on his duties.  He has no issues with violating his vows as we have seen earlier when he left to join Robb and had to be dragged back.  His issues have always been whether to do his job or help his Stark family.  Jon chose conflict because he loved his sister too much.  And when the pink letter arrived his response was to form a wildling army to escalate his conflict with Ramsay.  Between Dany and Jon, it is Jon who breaks peace and took the path of conflict.  Jon would make a good drinking buddy and a friend but he is not who I would pick to rule. 

Dany has the leadership down.  She is a great leader.  That's been proven time and again.  Her struggle is less internal but more practical.  How do you root out the harpy.  She also has to decide how much to compromise for peace.  The difference between Dany and Jon is she chose peace.  She chose to compromise to make peace and save what she could.  It was an uneven deal but her desire to end the conflict took over.  She wanted peace a little too soon even before the war has been won.  She should have won the war first and gotten rid of the harpy before engaging in peace talks.  To get rid of weeds, you have to pull the roots out.  She needs to pull the roots of the harpy and then negotiate a more balanced peace.  Dany has proven herself a very thoughtful and intelligent young woman.  Though she does lack the experience because of her youth and the fact that a revolution of this scale, the liberation of many millions of slaves, has never been tried before.  It is ambitious but also the right thing to do.  Power should be used to help the many, free the slaves in this case.  If I had to pick a ruler, it would be Dany over any other candidate in the story. 

[SeanF]

We get to see three rulers close up, in Feast and Dance.  Jon, Daenerys, and Cersei.  Cersei is a total failure.  Jon and Dany are partial failures, but they have successes too.  Cersei is abandoned by everyone, because she relies on nothing more than bribery and intimidation.  Jon and Dany retain widespread support, because each is basically decent, if flawed.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Nobody said that she is, at this point, evil, megalomaniacal or just maniacal.

My bad, misunderstanding came from my side, but I realised it.

 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Being Azor Ahai means that she is a religious figure, even a prophet. This means that a lot of people may start worshipping it, and being worshipped is never good for human psyche. Even if she tries to keep a grip on it, without external input to the contrary she will start losing sight of her own flaws and fallibility. And keep in mind, she is young - she is not Diocletian who declared himself a God-Emperor in order to stabilize Roman Empire, she will have been declared a prophetic saviour by her own followers.

Being a religious figure by only believers of the Red God. I don't know how much will that affect westerosi folk, since the PTWP prophecy is not related to religion (as far as we know). 

Being a religious figure of R'hllor wouldn't even be as good as you might think it would be. We don't know how much it could affect her, we don't know how popular will be the idea her being Azor Ahai reborn. This is nothing more than assumption of the future we know mostly nothing about.

Dragons might be a proof for the believers in Essos. The last religion that was able to conquer in Westeros was the Faith of the Seven, several thousand years ago.

Stannis burned the nem Gods, but it doesn't seem like many people follow the Red God. Only a few, mostly in Selyse's circle.

Also, ressurecting someone is rather seen as witchcraft than the power of any god in Westeros.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Possession of dragons is a bad thing in several ways. After they are grown, especially. Dragons immediately confer legitimacy, which means that she will face less opposition - which on one hand is a good thing because she may have more room for compromise. But if it goes too far, because she gets too much legitimacy or simply because people are afraid of flying, fire-breathing lizards, then people might not be willing to contradict her. Which gives her a free rein and reduces the need to restrict herself.

After all, Aegon's Conquest and the entire Targaryen reign had a positive effect on Westeros. During the Dance, nowhere near died as many people as it did in the Wot5K. Dragons danced, mostly. The Blackfyre rebellion is a different thing, because a same case could not only happen in Targaryen reign. I think you understand why, if not, I could explain it later. 

Aerys wanted to burn down KL, but with wildfire. If House Baratheon manages to continue its reign, what guarantees you that a descendant would not use it for the samr thing? Nothing, since any future king could do it, not only Targaryens. Why would a future Baratheon (the name is only used for example, I'm not being offensive), not want to claim his father's throne, as Daemon Blackfyre wanted to put away his own brother? I doubt I have to explain this to you. The only thing that makes Targaryens specific are dragons, not Blackfyre claimants or wildfire.

Now: Dragons are weapons. Weapons are not only used for killing, but for deterrence too. People don't want to burn makes then not rebelling. This made the population doubleing, the lesser wars. Because conflicts between the 7 Kingdoms mostly ended. Wether you like it or not, dragons rather had a positive effect on Westeros than negative. 

And! The only megalomaniacal dragonrider I can recall was Aemond, and maybe Aegon the Conqueror. Neither Maegor, nor Daemon were megalomaniacs, tho they had several other mental problems. 

Megalomaniacalism is a mental sickness caused by power. But does not directly causes it.

Quote

Fact that her followers are utterly dedicated to her is also about her. Or rather, has implications for her. All good historical rulers have had to compromise: Basil II protected small landowners because he was not able to simply suppress the magnates. Matthias Corvinus likewise relied on minor nobility to overcome opposition from magnates. But what if they had absolutely dedicated followers, thus reducing need to compromise? What if they could have simply overcome opposition with flying, intelligent nukes? Or cow them with the mere fact of possession of such? Would they still have been good leaders? Human nature argues for "no". And even if Daenerys herself turns out good... what about successors?

For this, you can mostly find your answers upwards. But what you're talking about is tyranny, not megalomaniacalism. You can also find answers to this in Westerosi history: Aegon I, Jahaerys I and Viserys I are all considered good/great kings. And they had dragons. Of course, there's still Maegor and Aegon II. 

Robert turned out to be a good king, at least among the folk. Whst about his successors? Joffrey had no dragons.  Dragons did not only destructed, but also deterrenced. And they're not the only way of destruction, you know this, I am sure.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

My fourth point is about her rule in Mereen: she finds compromise difficult, is too impatient and focuses on her failures without seeing how much she has actually already achieved. She wants quick solutions - I don't want to write an essay so I'll just drop links to a series which agrees with my position - you'll understand better what I'm getting at. Will she be able to resist the temptation to use dragons for that purpose once they are grown enough?

She is a 15 year-old girl,mostly trying to rule without any education of how she has to or anyone decent advisor. I did not read the link you droped, simply because I have no time for it currently, but it does seem like what you're talking about is tyranny, not megalomaniacalism. And, in the case of a dragonlord, I don't know what we can talk about, except for tyranny. 

Remember ho Jahaerys showed Vermithor to Lord Baratheon? It was tyranny, no doubts, but not megalomaniacalism. Jaehaerys used Vermithor to deterrence. And he made sure that the Lord of the Stormlands will not rebel again, with deterrence, not with the destruction he could have caused with his dragon. I don't even know how a dragonlord's words can not be considered tyranny.

What I am saying is leave the girl grow up to her duty, and do not judge because what he might do in the future.

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

 

Remember ho Jahaerys showed Vermithor to Lord Baratheon? It was tyranny, no doubts, but not megalomaniacalism. Jaehaerys used Vermithor to deterrence. And he made sure that the Lord of the Stormlands will not rebel again, with deterrence, not with the destruction he could have caused with his dragon. I don't even know how a dragonlord's words can not be considered tyranny.

 

In fact, Jaehaerys burned thousands of Dornish sailors alive from the back of Vermithor, and that was a good thing in the eyes of the subjects he was protecting.