The rulership mistakes of Jon Snow

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So a while back I did threads pointing out the rulership mistakes of Cersei and Dany. I didn't do the 3rd POV leader in AFFC and ADWD for the reason that Jon's mistakes while numerous, were more subtle, and I couldn't be bothered reading ADWD again. Anyways here it is now after way too much time:

- So Jon's first kinda mistake comes in the form of Janos. Not in executing him, no but in what comes before. More exactly offering Janos Icemark. Now this is done knowing that Janos is the person most against Jon and due to his candidacy a natural figurehead for sedition. His idea is basically, if he accepts he's isolated and cut off from his potential powerbase, and if he refuses then it's choppy choppy time. Jon was probably favoring the latter, and luckily for him that is exactly what Janos did, allowing Jon to easily remove a danger and show himself to be a strong ruler. However, had Janos accepted, while it would have cut him off from his support base, it would have given him the potential to create another, this time in the form of a castle. A better choice would have been to send him ranging, like he did with Thorne, though that wouldn't have given Janos such a good a chance to openly defect and get his head lobbed off in the process. So Jon took a pretty big risk in the hopes of quickly consolidating his rule and permanently removing a threat, a risk that did however payed off, so take it as you will. Don't worry however his next mistakes aren't so hard to say if they were mistakes

- Jon's first big mistakes, the first in a similar of identical looking mistakes comes in his third chapter, after not Mance is burned. His actions there, with the arrow were actually very smart, allowing him to build support with the wildings for granting him mercy and with the Night's Watch for upholding their customs and defying Stannis. However he makes up for it when later in that chapter Bowen comes to discuss Stannis lettings the wildlings through. Janos comes with the complaint that they're allowing Stannis too much and paying the game of Thrones. Jon replies by pointing out that the game of thrones seems to be turning, failing to see or address the underlying problem. Bowen is not opposed to paying the game of thrones, nor is he opposed to kowtowing to Stannis, as he shows in ASOS when he tries to get him on the Janos ship, his problem is the wildlings. Jon misses this however, or if he doesn't he doesn't address it with Bowen. Jon also fails to point out that Stannis winning would be waaaay better for the Watch then the Boltons winning, thus some discreet support would be a good idea.

- Next up, in Jon V, Jon takes a wagon of food to feed Mole's Town and recruit. When Bowen protests, Jon instead of you know, explaining that they need men to man the Wall, and that giving them the paltry bit of rations as token of peace before offering them a place as part of the garrison is the best way to draw them in, simply dismisses Bowen's complaints. Hold on, because this shit is going to be quite the fucking trend

- Next up, in Jon VII, we begin to see the ever increasing tensions between the wildlings and the brothers of the Nights Watch. Jon does do his best to mitigate it, but, he fails to properly address it. In that very same chapter he thinks how the part of his vows about protecting the realms of men, refers to all men, wildlings included. But does he share that revelation with his brothers, explaining the need for unity. Nope. 

- Jon VIII is the first time Jon does some communicating with his underlings, after Bowen, Othell and Yarwick come and complain about Jon sending Val. That action in of itself is a bit risky, but the potential blowback if Val fails is limited, while the rewards are tremendous should she bring Tormund. In this meeting however the three men prove themselves completely opposed to what Jon is saying, allowing their old prejudices to fail and see what is in front of their eyes, even when Jon, finally bothers to explain himself. And Jon somehow doesn't relieve them of their offices immediately. Othell and Bowen in particular command the two orders Jon doesn't have the loyalty of, with the Rangers being the only one which is loyal. And when confronted with the three men completely opposed to his ideas, he doesn't think to put those orders under someone loyal, instead continuing to use them as his relays. What could possibly go wrong?

- Up next comes Alys's marriage to the Magnar, which is actually a pretty smart idea, tying the most organized wildling force to the North, and aiding Stannis without breaking any rules, and again Stannis winning is good for the Watch as he knows their plight. But. Him marrying Alys to a wildling does little to help his image, while marrying under R'hllor is just a terrible idea. Use a bloody tree, it's the North. And again, Jon doesn't bother explaining any of this shit to his men.

- Next up Jon negotiates with Tormund and strikes a very good bargain, that actually ensures everyone will behave and massively helps out the Watch. But. Bowen then comes to confront him and directly accuses Jon of breaking his vows. Jon replies by pointing out what his vows are, which is well and good, but Jon, why are you allowing a man that so openly questions your authority to remain as the second most powerful man in the Watch? It's not even that mutiny is the biggest problem, Jon needs to use the stewards for maintaining the Watch, but everything that goes to the stewards, goes through Bowen a man that has clearly shown he is actively opposed to what Jon is doing.

- Finally the Shield Hall happens and oh my God, Jon should be given the retard award. Jon could point out that Ramsay is now an existential threat to the Watch that needs to be taken out, or he could say he's now a liability to the Watch, so him attacking Ramsay is the best course of action, if he wins he can secure the North for the Watch, if he loses the Watch can disavow him and survive. Nope, Jon offers none of these rational and sane explanations to why he commits, what is in the eyes of many the ultimate betrayal. At this point I think he was actively trying to get assassinated, which he then does, getting either passed out or more likely killed. Let's just hope Ghost can teach him some communication skills while he's inside.

All in all Jon, while actually doing mainly good decisions when it comes to the actual ruling, be it the Iron Bank, Stannis or the wildlings, makes one mistake after another when it comes to his underlings. He fails to explain fundamental stuff to his men, and allows unreliable men to serve directly under him.

So what do you think, are there any you disagree with, are there any that I missed?

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- Finally the Shield Hall happens and oh my God, Jon should be given the retard award. Jon could point out that Ramsay is now an existential threat to the Watch that needs to be taken out, or he could say he's now a liability to the Watch, so him attacking Ramsay is the best course of action, if he wins he can secure the North for the Watch, if he loses the Watch can disavow him and survive. Nope, Jon offers none of these rational and sane explanations to why he commits, what is in the eyes of many the ultimate betrayal. At this point I think he was actively trying to get assassinated, which he then does, getting either passed out or more likely killed. Let's just hope Ghost can teach him some communication skills while he's inside.

It was a rhetorical mistake but I dont think this improved argument, would have changed Bowen's plans. "For the Watch" could mean whatever he wanted.

Quote

"Tell me, Alayne—which is more dangerous, the dagger brandished by an enemy, or the hidden one pressed to your back by someone you never even see?"

"The hidden dagger."

Jon flunked this lesson. He paid more attention to the dagger brandished by an enemy - but Bowen was more dangerous than Ramsay, in that moment.

Before the Shieldhall, Jon should have checked his back and thought seriously if the people he left at the Wall after their various missions could be trusted. He should have quietly informed Tormund that he needed intel on mutiny plots. Maybe even using skinchangers/wargs to gather it. He should have known that lots of enemies would be trying to take him out because of the choices he was having to make.

[TheLastWolf]

6 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Quote

"Tell me, Alayne—which is more dangerous, the dagger brandished by an enemy, or the hidden one pressed to your back by someone you never even see?"

"The hidden dagger."

Jon flunked this lesson. He paid more attention to the dagger brandished by an enemy - but Bowen was more dangerous than Ramsay, in that moment.

Before the Shieldhall, Jon should have checked his back and thought seriously if the people he left at the Wall after their various missions could be trusted. He should have quietly informed Tormund that he needed intel on mutiny plots. Maybe even using skinchangers/wargs to gather it. He should have known that lots of enemies would be trying to take him out because of the choices he was having to make.

This and persisting in the attempts to change a group of xenophobic bigoted craven extremists 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

37 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

This and persisting in the attempts to change a group of xenophobic bigoted craven extremists 

Not that, hut his failures to see hiw bad it was an his abject failure to di anything about it by better communicating and replacing key underlings

[Texas Hold Em]

The rulership mistakes of Jon Snow

1. He was callous towards the opinions and feelings of his black brothers.  Time and better communication were needed.
2. Attempting to integrate the Wildlings too quickly.  Putting untested Wildlings in leadership over his black brothers. 
3. Wasting horses, men, and resources on Hardhome.
4. Allowing his personal feelings influence his treatment of Janos and Mance. 
5. Getting himself and the Nightswatch involved in the affairs of Ramsay.
6. Plotting to attack a nobleman with an army of Wildlings. 

[Crona]

11 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

 And he WASN'T PLOTTING TO ATTACK THE IGNOBLE NORTHERN TRAITOR BUT DEFEND THE WATCH FROM THE THREAT BY THE PINK LETTER. Defense by first offense. Castle Black can't be defended against southern troops 

The pink letter was sent to Jon to provoke him to march to Winterfell. Ramsay was bluffing as there is a snow storm and after fighting the Bolton’s he may not even have enough forces to go north and survive. Plus many northern houses probably do not want to attack the Wall.  Jon fell for his trick and ended up falling into Ramsay’s trap. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 minutes ago, Crona said:

The pink letter was sent to Jon to provoke him to march to Winterfell. Ramsay was bluffing as there is a snow storm and after fighting the Bolton’s he may not even have enough forces to go north and survive. Plus many northern houses would probably do not want to attack the Wall.  Jon fell for his trick and ended up falling into Ramsay’s trap. 

That is more then likely true, even more so given that the letter is probably fake and was sent not by Ramsay but by Mance or Stannis.

That being said, this means you can chalk it up to Jon being stupid and impulsive in assessing the letter, but you can't accuse him of the usual, oh Jon ignored his duty. No Jon took his duty very seriously, only he did it with flawed and incomplete information, which is ironically the exact same thing Bowen and co. do later in the chapter as they try and assassinate him.

[Crona]

2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That is more then likely true, even more so given that the letter is probably fake and was sent not by Ramsay but by Mance or Stannis.

That being said, this means you can chalk it up to Jon being stupid and impulsive in assessing the letter, but you can't accuse him of the usual, oh Jon ignored his duty. No Jon took his duty very seriously, only he did it with flawed and incomplete information, which is ironically the exact same thing Bowen and co. do later in the chapter as they try and assassinate him.

Yes, I find it very similar to the letter that Lysa sent Cat. If Cat had actually tried to look at the letter objectively, talked to Lysa about it and figured out she was crazy then she may not have kidnapped Tyrion.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Crona said:

Yes, I find it very similar to the letter that Lysa sent Cat. If Cat had actually tried to look at the letter objectively, talked to Lysa about it and figured out she was crazy then she may not have kidnapped Tyrion.

I think a better parallel is if they took a closed look at the letter Ned would not have gone South to King's Landing, just like Jon wouldn't have tired to go South for the Boltons.

Also Jon's plan was simple and clear, if he wins it's all well and good, and if he looses then the Watch won't be at risk as he'd be seen as a deserter. Catelyn's plan on the other hand seemed to have no foresight beyond capturing Tyrion.

[TheLastWolf]

6 hours ago, Crona said:

The pink letter was sent to Jon to provoke him to march to Winterfell

With all the crackpots surrounding the origin and intention of the Pink Letter, some are inevitably convincing. I don't blindly support the one which i want to happen so I'm still not sure about the Pink Letter's writer and intentions. 

6 hours ago, Crona said:

Ramsay was bluffing as there is a snow storm and after fighting the Bolton’s he may not even have enough forces to go north and survive. Plus many northern houses probably do not want to attack the Wall.  

All true, however, yet... 

6 hours ago, Crona said:

Jon fell for his trick and ended up falling into Ramsay’s trap

Jon didn't fall for it. He exploited the situation to take revenge and enforce justice or rather tried to. And he fell in Loyal Poor Bowen's trap. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, TheLastWolf said:

With all the crackpots surrounding the origin and intention of the Pink Letter, some are inevitably convincing. I don't blindly support the one which i want to happen so I'm still not sure about the Pink Letter's writer and intentions. 

Maybe, but there are quite a few hints that it's actually not Ramsay:

- The Handwirtting. Both letters Ramsay sends are described as having a spiky handwritting. Not the case for the Pink Letter.

- The wording. The wording of the letter, particularly about the black crows seems to indicate Mance

- And third off, it's purpose. If Ramsay wanted something, he would have marched his army afterwards and demanded all those things with said army. That letter, with it's obvious threats to the watch, the impossible demands, makes it impossible for Jon to maintain any kind of neutrality, and with that being the case it's obvious which side he'd chose. Something that well only two people would want. Stannis or Mance.

So I actually do believe that Stannis or Mance wrote it.

Btw, Ramsay's "Seven Days of Battle" are pretty neat reference to the Seven Days Battle in which Lee repulsed McClellan's attack on Richmond, albeit at a heavy cost, similarly to how Ramsay pretends/thinks to have repulsed Stannis's attack on Winterfell.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

10 hours ago, Crona said:

The pink letter was sent to Jon to provoke him to march to Winterfell. Ramsay was bluffing as there is a snow storm and after fighting the Bolton’s he may not even have enough forces to go north and survive. Plus many northern houses probably do not want to attack the Wall.  Jon fell for his trick and ended up falling into Ramsay’s trap. 

The pink letter was sent in response to Jon's hostile actions against the Boltons.  Putting himself and the watch in conflict with the Boltons was wrong.

[TheLastWolf]

10 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Maybe, but there are quite a few hints that it's actually not Ramsay:

- The Handwirtting. Both letters Ramsay sends are described as having a spiky handwritting. Not the case for the Pink Letter.

- The wording. The wording of the letter, particularly about the black crows seems to indicate Mance

- And third off, it's purpose. If Ramsay wanted something, he would have marched his army afterwards and demanded all those things with said army. That letter, with it's obvious threats to the watch, the impossible demands, makes it impossible for Jon to maintain any kind of neutrality, and with that being the case it's obvious which side he'd chose. Something that well only two people would want. Stannis or Mance.

So I actually do believe that Stannis or Mance wrote it.

Btw, Ramsay's "Seven Days of Battle" are pretty neat reference to the Seven Days Battle in which Lee repulsed McClellan's attack on Richmond, albeit at a heavy cost, similarly to how Ramsay pretends/thinks to have repulsed Stannis's attack on Winterfell.

Add the lack of Theon's skin (from his removed phallus probably) in the letter, Ramsay asked for Reek too after all. Skin was in the letters to Cat, Asha and so... 

[The Commentator]

They were not so much mistakes as they were poor choices made by a man who was wrong for the job.  An Order which serves a kingdom is governed by laws.  Jon is not a good fit in that system.  He would fit in with the Freefolk where rule of law does not apply.  Jon is the last person who you would want to enforce the law.  He’s bad at keeping within the laws.  Jon would be awful as a ruler.  But he would work out as king-beyond-the-wall.  

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon would be awful as a ruler.  But he would work out as king-beyond-the-wall.  

Luckily for us, kings are not rulers, apparently. 

[TheLastWolf]

9 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

An Order which serves a kingdom is governed by laws

Surprise surprise, the NW is neutral and under no one's jurisdiction 

[Rondo]

Jon was on his way to become the wildling's leader if he had not gotten himself killed.  It would have been the right place for him.  Jon is a less able version of Mance.  Jon's supporters will be disappointed because he won't rule Westeros.  Like his brother Robb, Jon had a flaw which made him unsuitable for ruling.  Robb betrayed an important ally and Jon did the same to his own command.  That's a disastrous move every time.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 1/11/2021 at 10:15 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

They were not so much mistakes as they were poor choices made by a man who was wrong for the job.  An Order which serves a kingdom is governed by laws.  Jon is not a good fit in that system.  He would fit in with the Freefolk where rule of law does not apply.  Jon is the last person who you would want to enforce the law.  He’s bad at keeping within the laws.  Jon would be awful as a ruler.  But he would work out as king-beyond-the-wall.  

 

14 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon was on his way to become the wildling's leader if he had not gotten himself killed.  It would have been the right place for him.  Jon is a less able version of Mance.  Jon's supporters will be disappointed because he won't rule Westeros.  Like his brother Robb, Jon had a flaw which made him unsuitable for ruling.  Robb betrayed an important ally and Jon did the same to his own command.  That's a disastrous move every time.

Ooops, I think you made a double post. 

[Fflow]

On 1/10/2021 at 6:50 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Maybe, but there are quite a few hints that it's actually not Ramsay

Also:

"I want my bride back. [...] and I want my reek" If he really had defeated Stannis, he would have his bride and reek

[Tagganaro]

My personal view is that while Jon is flawed as a ruler in certain ways, even if he was the ideal leader I don't think he could have done much better (Pink Letter reaction aside).  Jon inherited an impossible situation at the Wall, with Castle Black in particular full of factionalized scheming backstabbers just waiting to kill Jon.  This is through little fault of his own.  Stannis's presence there put a target on Jon from anyone looking to gain favor with the Boltons and Lannisters.  And created further political divisions among an entity that is supposed to be apolitical.  

Then you add in the fact that there is an ideological divide that can't be bridged between Jon/the Rangers and Marsh/stewards/conspirators, I really don't see what Jon could do differently.  I'd argue Jon is entirely on the right side of this divide, with an apocalyptic threat bearing down on the Wall and the Watch, with the Watch completely depleted and lacking enough manpower to do anything about it.  Again, this is not Jon's fault.  This is centuries of mismanagement exacerbated by Mormont's doomed expedition that crippled the already weak Watch and deprived them of many of their best men.  Marsh is described by pretty much everyone as an idiot, beginning in the first book when Mormont complains about him and others.  Yet he's in an extreme position of power at the Watch due to all the lost manpower, particularly the Rangers.  Marsh is good at what he is good at, which is counting and stewarding, not battle tactics and politics.  

Jon in his short time in charge actually transformed the Watch into what it should have been all along, fulfilling Mormont's dying realization that the Watch wasn't there to fight wildlings but protect the realm of men (which the wildlings belonged to and could fill the crippling manpower shortage that the Watch was dealing with).  I think this is pretty impressive.