Why Daenerys is a better ruler and leader than Jon

[Mystical]

10 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

And we also don't know as much Starks as much Targaryens we do. I mean by personality.

And whose fault is that? GRRM revisiting the same 300 year period over and over with focus on the same family, that's who. It's much easier to judge the Targs than it is any other Great House on the whole damn planet because GRRM refuses to tell us anything about anyone else.

As to the topic, I don't see how Dany is better just by the sheer magnitude of victims. Thousands upon thousands have died already for a rhetoric she doesn't actually believe. And that so many people excuse her mistakes (aka dead human bodies) with 'well she is young and still learning to rule' will never not make sense to me. I'm sorry but how many dead humans are acceptable just so someone can learn something they aren't actually very good at to begin with nor do they seem to progress in said field? At what point is the body pile too big? Or does that not matter?

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Mystical said:

And whose fault is that? GRRM revisiting the same 300 year period over and over with focus on the same family, that's who. It's much easier to judge the Targs than it is any other Great House on the whole damn planet because GRRM refuses to tell us anything about anyone else.

As to the topic, I don't see how Dany is better just by the sheer magnitude of victims. Thousands upon thousands have died already for a rhetoric she doesn't actually believe. And that so many people excuse her mistakes (aka dead human bodies) with 'well she is young and still learning to rule' will never not make sense to me. I'm sorry but how many dead humans are acceptable just so someone can learn something they aren't actually very good at to begin with nor do they seem to progress in said field? At what point is the body pile too big? Or does that not matter?

What's worse?  War in Slavers' Bay, or the institutionalisation of Ramsay Bolton's cruelty?

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 1/28/2021 at 2:16 PM, SeanF said:

What's worse?  War in Slavers' Bay, or the institutionalisation of Ramsay Bolton's cruelty?

Whataboutism much? Let people question if Targaryens and their love of dragons is the best method for improving society.

Dany tells people they're "free" but then they die from starvation instead. This is constantly repeated in her story, even back to the Red Waste. 

"Yet even as her dragons prospered, her khalasar withered and died."

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Whataboutism much? Let people question if Targaryens and their love of dragons is the best method for improving society.

Dany tells people they're "free" but then they die from starvation instead. This is constantly repeated in her story, even back to the Red Waste. 

"Yet even as her dragons prospered, her khalasar withered and died."

 

People can and do question it, but most conclude that fighting the slave masters is preferable to not fighitng them.  There are times when overthrowing the status quo is preferable to keeping it.

Freedom does inevitably entail risk, especially when the masters will use starvation as a weapon.

The choices were treck through the Red Waste, be enslaed by the Dothraki, or be killed by the Lhazareen.  There were no good options there.

[Rose of Red Lake]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

People can and do question it, but most conclude that fighting the slave masters is preferable to not fighitng them.

Freedom does inevitably entail risk, especially when the masters will use starvation as a weapon.

You're assuming there will be something positive to come from anything Dany does. I'm telling you, there won't. There are just too many passages in the books like - 

"I made a horror just as great..."

"All my victories turn to dross in my hands, she thought. Whatever I do, all I make is death and horror..."

Quote

The choices were treck through the Red Waste, be enslaed by the Dothraki, or be killed by the Lhazareen.  There were no good options there.

Yeah. No good options, so no good results. Only her dragons thrive while everything else she touches, dies. It's a metaphor for everything she does.

[arianavarice]

I don't really think both are particularly good rulers but I think Daenerys is smarter and more charismatic in the show compared to Jon. 

I don't think Daenerys is a fair ruler like Jon would be. I think she's the sort who is defensive when she is critisized and that she's dangerous for assuming she is right. But in that way, she is able to play the game of thrones better. She's not so naive and she knows you have to be selfish to rise. I think she would have lasted longer had season 8 been realistic. I also thought her people had faith in her or seems more in awe of her because of how firm she was. As for Jon, he looked out of place to me. Like he was too kind to rule. He's too peaceful and tries to negotiate with everyone.

And I didn't find Jon charismatic. He didn't seem inspiring compared to what he could have been. He's the silent, brooding type, and I feel that doesn't work for a ruler. I know George has a soft spot for good-hearted, honest people but this is the game of thrones. 

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

You're assuming there will be something positive to come from anything Dany does. I'm telling you, there won't. There are just too many passages in the books like - 

"I made a horror just as great..."

"All my victories turn to dross in my hands, she thought. Whatever I do, all I make is death and horror..."

Yeah. No good options, so no good results. Only her dragons thrive while everything else she touches, dies. It's a metaphor for everything she does.

We’ll have wait and see what the outcome is in TWOW.

My view is that the experience of war and revolution in Essos will be similar to the wars and revolutions that swept Europe, the Caribbean, and Spanish America between 1790 - 1830.  Decide for yourself if the outcome was positive or negative.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, arianavarice said:

I don't really think both are particularly good rulers but I think Daenerys is smarter and more charismatic in the show compared to Jon. 

I don't think Daenerys is a fair ruler like Jon would be. I think she's the sort who is defensive when she is critisized and that she's dangerous for assuming she is right. But in that way, she is able to play the game of thrones better. She's not so naive and she knows you have to be selfish to rise. I think she would have lasted longer had season 8 been realistic. I also thought her people had faith in her or seems more in awe of her because of how firm she was. As for Jon, he looked out of place to me. Like he was too kind to rule. He's too peaceful and tries to negotiate with everyone.

And I didn't find Jon charismatic. He didn't seem inspiring compared to what he could have been. He's the silent, brooding type, and I feel that doesn't work for a ruler. I know George has a soft spot for good-hearted, honest people but this is the game of thrones. 

Late season show Jon was a doormat.  Book Jon is quite different.

[Rose of Red Lake]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Late season show Jon was a doormat.  Book Jon is quite different.

People change after resurrection 

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

We’ll have wait and see what the outcome is in TWOW.

My view is that the experience of war and revolution in Essos will be similar to the wars and revolutions that swept Europe, the Caribbean, and Spanish America between 1790 - 1830.  Decide for yourself if the outcome was positive or negative.

There is no "both sides" to nukes. They aren't helping humanity make social change in any form whatsoever. 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

People change after resurrection 

There is no "both sides" to nukes. They aren't helping humanity make social change in any form whatsoever. 

They turned out pretty well for the Western allies in 1945.  

[Rose of Red Lake]

Just now, SeanF said:

They turned out pretty well for the Western allies in 1945.  

I showed you GRRM's quotes on the atomic bomb. He agreed with Heinlein that they would destroy humanity.

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I showed you GRRM's quotes on the atomic bomb. He agreed with Heinlein that they would destroy humanity.

Martin does not tell his readers what to think.  He raises questions. As far as I know, he’s not a unilateralist.

His favourite ruler, Jaehaerys, was quite willing to use his “nukes” on Dornish invaders. Thousands of them were burned.  Do you think Martin is condemning him for it?  That’s certainly not my impression.  For that matter, burning Harren in his castle was pretty positive for the people of the Riverlands.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

37 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I showed you GRRM's quotes on the atomic bomb. He agreed with Heinlein that they would destroy humanity.

Martin does not tell his readers what to think.  He raises questions. As far as I know, he’s not a unilateralist.

His favourite ruler, Jaehaerys, was quite willing to use his “nukes” on Dornish invaders. Thousands of them were burned.  Do you think Martin is condemning him for it?  That’s certainly not my impression.  For that matter, burning Harren in his castle was pretty positive for the people of the Riverlands.

Yeah, I agree, I think GRRM's point is not that dragons and nukes are bad, but rather that they should almost never be used, and that they're only really good for deterrence. That is I think the difference between Maegor and Jaehaerys

[SeanF]

47 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yeah, I agree, I think GRRM's point is not that dragons and nukes are bad, but rather that they should almost never be used, and that they're only really good for deterrence. That is I think the difference between Maegor and Jaehaerys

Agreed. Because Jaehaerys was wiling to use dragons against foes, he rarely had to use them.  Because he was willing to cut the entrails out of traitors, he rarely had to do so.  Burning an invading army or navy is a good use of dragons.  Burning a ctiy to the ground to deal with a terrorist movement would be a bad use of dragons. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Burning a ctiy to the ground to deal with a terrorist movement would be a bad use of dragons. 

Burning a city to the ground in general is a bad idea. Keep in mind, even in his very subtle threats, Jaehaerys at worst threatened raising castles to the ground, not cities. Even with the Sealord, the threat was more that Jaehaerys could torch the Sealord's palace without blinking an eye.

[Daeron the Daring]

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Agreed. Because Jaehaerys was wiling to use dragons against foes, he rarely had to use them.  Because he was willing to cut the entrails out of traitors, he rarely had to do so.  Burning an invading army or navy is a good use of dragons.  Burning a ctiy to the ground to deal with a terrorist movement would be a bad use of dragons. 

Agreed. I've never understood people mocking Jaehaerys protecting his own kingdom/people with dragons. He never in his entire lifetime participated in an offensive war. Well, neither did Maegor, but he crossed some (many) lines, and his cruelty showed himself not only on the battlefield.

[Rose of Red Lake]

6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yeah, I agree, I think GRRM's point is not that dragons and nukes are bad, but rather that they should almost never be used, and that they're only really good for deterrence. That is I think the difference between Maegor and Jaehaerys

In the interview he talks about how you cant control that kind of power because it eventually gets into the hands of crazy dictators. In another interview he says Dany has nuclear deterrence but asks "is that sufficient" to achieve goals. He is trying to show how kind of power is insufficient to improve things.

[Roswell]

On 1/2/2021 at 5:38 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

(It should be someone like James Fenimore Cooper to compose this reaction piece but I will do my best.) 

Daenerys Targaryen is a better ruler and leader than Jon Snow.  We are all familiar with their leadership styles.  There is enough information for us to pass judgment on who the better leader is.  I will start with Jon Snow.

Jon Snow

Jon is far from the worst leader in A Song of Ice and Fire.  He is actually capable most of the time.  His biggest strength as a leader is his ability to teach.  Jon was able to teach the other less-fortunate cadets the proper use of the sword in combat.  Yes, he was an arrogant and entitled fool when he arrived.  A little man to man talk with a seasoned man helped open his eyes.  Many of the fans praise Jon for protecting the craven cadet, Samwell Tarly.  It is a well-earned praise.  Samwell would have died from fright if Jon had not stepped in and helped. 

I have established that Jon Snow is basically an average guy who has had a good training in the fighting arts.  As a leader, he is usually capable of performing his job.  However, there problems beneath his exterior.  Many of the fans have already brought it up repeatedly.   Jon has a chip on his shoulders.  Push that chip and he goes ballistic.  He is guilty of attacking Ser Alliser Thorne, a superior officer.  He has anger management issues which culminated in the inappropriate way in which he judged two guilty men, Janos Slynt and Mance Rayder.  By every laws of the land, it should have been the deserter and turncloak, Mance Rayder, who was executed.  Matters went downhill from there.  He sent the deserter and turncloak to bring his sister to him at the Wall.  This is an act of war against Roose and Ramsay Bolton.  The Night's Watch should never, and never has until now, make war against the people of The Seven Kingdoms. 

I served in the military for the better part of my early adult life.  I have never been tested in the same way as Jon was with Arya.  I will say there are a lot of men who would do as Jon did.  They would forsake their duties, no matter how critical it is, to save their sisters.  But there are still more who would do their duties and accept that they cannot help their sisters.  For proof, you only have to look at those men who are in the business of rescuing and saving people and property.  Many men would rather be at home with their families during an emergency crisis but instead they stay at their posts and do their jobs.  I knew people who went to Kuwait while they had desperate families back home.  Parents battling cancer.  Wives struggling to raise handicapped children alone.  I could go on and on.  The point is, it is not unreasonable nor is it rare for people to do their jobs even when they have critical family concerns back home.  And those men who can't do this should never be in command.  It's fine for desk jockey to always sacrifice his duties for his families.  But that is not acceptable for a commander of an organization who has been tasked with the protection of the kingdom. 

Quorin Halfhand said something in book 2.  He said of Mance Rayder, he was the best and the worst of us.  He had trouble obeying.  Jon is very much like Mance Rayder.  In many ways, he is the ideal black brother.  But he is also the worst possible.  Jon is a man gifted with martial skills.  He is a smart young man who usually makes sound decisions.  I don't think his inability to judge and prioritize will matter much with the Wildlings.  To the Free Folk, whatever the strong man says is right is right.  Might makes right with the Wildlings.  Jon does not have to be fair, nor consistent.  Laws among the Wildlings are not as well-defined. 

Daenerys Targaryen

Princess Daenerys Targaryen began the story a scared and nervous young girl.  Forced to marry into an alien culture, she used her natural intelligence to thrive.  Courage, intelligence, and determination allowed her to adapt to the Dothraki culture.  She brought the dragons back from extinction.  She had the smarts and the courage to lead her khalasar beyond the Red Waste until they reached Vaes Tolorro.  This is nothing less than remarkable for a girl of her age.  She defeated the Undying in the Palace of Dust with the help of her dragon, Drogon.  Over and over, Daenerys has managed to use her intelligence and her cunning to outmaneuver her adversaries.  She has become a very good player of the game of thrones with her own style. 

Queen Daenerys has become the conqueror and the ruler of the slaver city of Meereen.  She knows what we know.  As humans, we have a responsibility to make laws and judge the guilty.  The Meereenese masters perpetrated the most heinous war crime in the entire saga so far.  This is many times more heinous than the Red Wedding in The Twins.  The masters crucified the children of their slaves and used them to decorate the road to the city.  This kind of crime cannot go unpunished.  To do so would be to deny justice to those children.  Allowing the Meereenese to bring forth the guilty is a modern concept of peers judging peers.  It is certainly preferable to the arbitrary trial of combat being practiced in Westeros.  She is facing an enemy who refuse to fight her troops in open combat.  And yet, she refused to execute her cup bearers.  This was a smart move.  Those children can be socialized and educated away from their slaver parents.  These children will be the foundation of a free Slaver's Bay. 

The situation in Meereen is very complicated.  Skahaz, Reznak, and Hizdahr are unreliable allies.  Daenerys has been warned to be careful by Quaithe.  Yet, she reacts with reason and caution.  A Cersei would have had them all killed.  But a good leader knows that you have to trust people.  Everything carries a risk.  One person cannot manage a city of the size of Meereen.  Jorah's betrayal is revealed.  Daenerys wisely did not kill the man and instead sent him into exile.  Daenerys is a reflective, thoughtful person.  Which is a good quality for someone who has to make decisions.  She has much to learn about ruling but her potential is without limits.