Daenerys Targaryen is a better leader than Jon Snow.

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

As p.r, not as defense.

But you said Jon wasn't getting the 'trappings of power'. But if he is being accompanied by guard(s) for PR then surely that is getting the 'trappings of power'?

Also, in that quote, Jon talks about it being 'prudent' to have guards, so how is he not taking into account his defence/protection? He chooses the best fighters, men in their prime. So clearly he is trying to protect himself. So the claim he did nothing to defend himself after being 'warned' doesn't make sense to me.

[LongRider]

Jon had two guards, Horse and Rory with him when he was attacked.  Not having Ghost with him was a mistake, true.  However, it’s important to remember that Wun Wun had his full attention, and that fact seems to get lost sometimes.  
 

With Jon’s attention elsewhere it was a good time for the assassins to strike.  Horse and Rory are not professional bodyguards, there are none at the Wall. Jon picked men he felt he could trust but they couldn’t overcome the element of the distraction of the giant, and without Ghost there he was more vulnerable than he expected. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by LongRider

[Hugorfonics]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

But you said Jon wasn't getting the 'trappings of power'. But if he is being accompanied by guard(s) for PR then surely that is getting the 'trappings of power'?

Also, in that quote, Jon talks about it being 'prudent' to have guards, so how is he not taking into account his defence/protection? He chooses the best fighters, men in their prime. So clearly he is trying to protect himself. So the claim he did nothing to defend himself after being 'warned' doesn't make sense to me.

Prudent for p.r and he's showing off the power of the NW not the LC 

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Jon had two guards, Horse and Rory with him when he was attacked.  Not having Ghost with him was a mistake, true.  However, it’s important to remember that Wun Wun had his full attention, and that fact seems to get lost sometimes.  
 

With Jon’s attention elsewhere it was a good time for the assassins to strike.  Horse and Rory are not professional bodyguards, there are none at the Wall. Jon picked men he felt he could trust but they couldn’t overcome the element of the distraction of the giant, and without Ghost there he was more vulnerable than he expected. 

Jons reputation was his father's a traitor and he's a warg who rode with the wildlings. Through the backdoor dealings of Sam he inherited the last victims seat and expected CB who voted nearly to a man for Janos to remain submissive after his death. Despite the history, present and warnings of the future from Mel. Wun Wun was a when (when) not an if. 

He used to have a veteran of Edd who camped with him, he was pretty annoying no doubt but I see no defensive reason to replace him with Satin. Then there's the big guy Grenn who they called Archos because of his size and strength, he's gone. Or Sam who proved able to think moves in advance and through their opponents eyes, he's gone. Even Pyp was good at talking things out and calming the nerve of his brothers yet he took was banished from CB. At every turn Jon just dug his grave a little deeper 

[Craving Peaches]

32 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Prudent for p.r and he's showing off the power of the NW not the LC 

I'm confused. Jon picked the best fighters he could find to be his guards and to show he meant business, yet somehow this is not about protecting himself but only PR but he also fails at that because...? The Lord Commander is the Head of the Watch so showing the power of the Watch is showing his power...

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm confused. Jon picked the best fighters he could find to be his guards and to show he meant business, yet somehow this is not about protecting himself but only PR but he also fails at that because...? The Lord Commander is the Head of the Watch so showing the power of the Watch is showing his power...

Don't bother with the above word salad, usually the haters are whining about Jon having the bestest NW there evah was handed him and he ruined it!  If nearly to a man had voted for Janos Slynt (Tywin's choice by the way) he would have won.  But whatever.

[Hugorfonics]

Just now, LongRider said:

Don't bother with the above word salad, usually the haters are whining about Jon having the bestest NW there evah was handed him and he ruined it!  If nearly to a man had voted for Janos Slynt (Tywin's choice by the way) he would have won.  But whatever.

Ok, like mentioning the word Janos doesn't make me a hater but whatever.

Jon did ruin the NW tho. He let the Wildlings in, broke neutrality and his death will probably lead to a civil war between the NW castles and a potential bloodbath at CB. But, fuck the nw, it's a slave colony. Jon ruined hell, thats not a bad thing.

14 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm confused. Jon picked the best fighters he could find to be his guards and to show he meant business, yet somehow this is not about protecting himself but only PR but he also fails at that because...? The Lord Commander is the Head of the Watch so showing the power of the Watch is showing his power...

The wildlings didn't vote for Janos, they were the enemy but they're not anymore. The ducklings that Jon hates are there for the like that killed Mormont, but the muscle that yells at the freefolk is to reinforce they're kneelers. It's similar but different.

Not everything Jon did was dumb, most of his decisions I completely agree with especially the ones that attack the core foundations of the NW. But in some aspects, like the ever promising death threats of his predecessor, his enemies around him who voted for Janos or the literal promise Mel made Jon just stubbornly puts his fingers in his ears and says I can't hear you, which should be the words of house Stark.

Like he's not Balon, he wasn't murdered in front of his house by a faceless assassin sent from a loved one long gone. This was in his face by his neighbors whom he scorned who carried red flags like a banner 

[Craving Peaches]

16 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The wildlings didn't vote for Janos, they were the enemy but they're not anymore. The ducklings that Jon hates are there for the like that killed Mormont, but the muscle that yells at the freefolk is to reinforce they're kneelers. It's similar but different.

I'm sorry, but I am even more confused now. What does this have to do with the part of my post you quoted?

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

But in some aspects, like the ever promising death threats of his predecessor, his enemies around him who voted for Janos or the literal promise Mel made Jon just stubbornly puts his fingers in his ears and says I can't hear you, which should be the words of house Stark.

But he doesn't really, because he takes steps to try and reduce those issues...

[Aerodimas]

I thought Jon picked the best fighters for his spars, that way he didn't need to search for them.

[LongRider]

29 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon did ruin the NW tho. ......broke neutrality

Disagree, neutrality was broken by Stannis and he was in place at CB by the time Jon became LC.  Actually, neutrality was broken before then, by the plotters Alliser, Marsh, Othell and perhaps more.  They wanted to put Tywin's man Slynt in the LC position.  Tywin wanted the Watch for his own purposes.   

Bringing the wildlings in was to serve two purposes, one was the NW vow of protecting the realms of men, and Jon sees the wildings as men, and to prevent them from becoming wights and increasing the army of the dead.  He didn't just let them in because he was impressed by Tormund's big member. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by LongRider

[Hugorfonics]

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm sorry, but I am even more confused now. What does this have to do with the part of my post you quoted?

All of it?

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But he doesn't really, because he takes steps to try and reduce those issues...

But clearly not enough, as he's dead on the floor. Aerys took precautions too. Or Dany, and like her father it backfired. Well with Dany it's a little different because the slavers actually wanted peace until she "died" and then all hell really broke loose. Point being, they failed. If they made every decision correctly then they wouldn't have.

[JonSnow4President]

@HugorfonicsCan you explain why you think Janos' execution was the wrong thing?  Quite frankly, it's a near forced decision.  Not executing Janos for his blatant and public insubordination is far more dangerous than killing the man who publicly spit in the face of the authority of Jon's office.

[Hugorfonics]

7 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Disagree, neutrality was broken by Stannis and he was in place at CB by the time Jon became LC.  Actually, neutrality was broken before then, by the plotters Alliser, Marsh, Othell and perhaps more.  They wanted to put Tywin's man Slynt in the LC position.  Tywin wanted the Watch for his own purposes.   

Neutrality was broken by Stannis? They wrote him a letter begging for assistance, in fact, Jon doesn't know what took him so long. Tywin is allowed to break neutrality, so is Stannis, Amory, Ramsay and Moonboy for all I know. They're not slaves without love honor or will.

10 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Bringing the wildlings in was to serve two purposes, one was the NW vow of protecting the realms of men, and Jon sees the wildings as men, and to prevent them from becoming wights and increasing the army of the dead.  He didn't just let them in because he was impressed by Tormund's big member. 

Again, I agree with Jon's decisions. Ruining the Nightswatch, even if accidentally and even if it's just the lore of the NW and not it's actual program. But that can come later. 

Yes, obviously allowing refugees to live and not turn into zombies is the right and correct thing to do. But I appreciate the dick joke.

[JonSnow4President]

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Neutrality was broken by Stannis? They wrote him a letter begging for assistance, in fact, Jon doesn't know what took him so long. Tywin is allowed to break neutrality, so is Stannis, Amory, Ramsay and Moonboy for all I know. They're not slaves without love honor or will.

You mean the letter they sent to everyone?  How is that them breaking neutrality?

[Hugorfonics]

28 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

@HugorfonicsCan you explain why you think Janos' execution was the wrong thing?  Quite frankly, it's a near forced decision.  Not executing Janos for his blatant and public insubordination is far more dangerous than killing the man who publicly spit in the face of the authority of Jon's office.

Yeah its a tight rope. So I've got like two main points, ones kinda bullshit, I'll do that first.

Asoiaf is famous for killing characters. They're introduced we love them (well, Janos lol) and then they die in a memorable way. But really when Robert died the plot changed same with Ned and Renly, uh Viserys before, even minor characters like Cleos Frey his death moves the plot by allowing Jaime to take his sword. Literally every death (not intros or excerpt) change the game, but Janos dies (whys he a character? Why didn't Tyrion off him? Couldn't Alliser function the same role in asos?) and the plot kinda just continues like normal. But that would go against the norm so I'm inclined to believe that a sort of "for the Slynt" (trademarked by kissd from years ago, I think from mocking me but I loved and still love it) mindset took hold on his old supporters like Bowen and the builder. 

 

But from what we can see, the great philosopher Michael Corleone once said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Janos was the opposition, he was the face, he just couldn't stop talking shit. If you were friends with Janos you were an enemy of Jon it was simple arithmetic. 

When Jon pressed Janos he gave him 24hrs to pack which I think we all agree was used for plotting or sharpening the dagger, a day later he finds him at the breakfast table having pancakes. Was that like a chess move? Jon calls him out, rook to e4, and Janos just kinda blubbers and stares at him. When shit hit the fan Janos was either too craven or ineffectual to respond. This is the leader of the enemies you want. Fast forward a couple breakfast tables later and Jon gives a speech that moves his murderers to their feet. But I ask you if Janos was in command of the opposition would be stand to his feet or remain seated like last time?

Eta.

Quote

You mean the letter they sent to everyone?  How is that them breaking neutrality?

It's not 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Hugorfonics

[LongRider]

Marsh had letters sent to the Five Kings asking each if they could send men to the NW.  They were trying to recruit men and bring their numbers up after losing Mormont and most of the ranging party.  Then, after Stannis arrived and beat the wildlings, he and his warriors and court members were provided with housing, food and strategic planning, which is not being neutral.  Stannis is active in the W5K and supporting him is not neutral.  It was Davos who convinced Stannis to go North and fight.

Tywin received the same letter and then used his power to subvert men in the NW; Alliser, Marsh, Othell to try to swing an election to the man Tywin wanted, Janos Slynt. This was not a neutral act by Tywin or the NW men who plotted with him.  

Edited May 31, 2023 by LongRider

[Fist of the Dragon]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon isn't an unworthy leader, but he got himself killed there. And it was his fault. Now, if he survives his death (lol), he could improve.

But honestly I feel disappointed by the depiction of Jon Snow in ADwD. His were not only mostly boring chapters, but they were also written in a very bland tone. Jon seemed smarter and more perceptive and more curious in the earlier books.

Dany also fucked certain things up, but she didn't get herself killed - and she had a clear goal. Jon is just bumbling along.

I agree it was his fault.
But Jon's biggest weakness as a leader should not be ignored. A section of A Storm of Swords quickly points this out:

''You must not balk, whatever is asked of you. Ride with them, eat with them,  fight with them . . . But this old man had offered no resistance. He had been  unlucky, that was all. Who he was, where he came from, where he meant to go  on his sorry sway-backed horse . . . none of it mattered.  He is an old man, Jon told himself. Fifty, maybe even sixty. He lived a longer  life than most. The Thenns will kill him anyway, nothing I can say or do will save  him. Longclaw seemed heavier than lead in his hand, too heavy to lift. The man  kept staring at him, with eyes as big and black as wells. I will fall into those eyes  and drown. The Magnar was looking at him too, and he could almost taste the  mistrust. The man is dead. What matter if it is my hand that slays him? One cut  would do it, quick and clean. Longclaw was forged of Valyrian steel. Like Ice.  Jon remembered another killing; the deserter on his knees, his head rolling, the  brightness of blood on snow . . . his father’s sword, his father’s words, his  father’s face''(SOS, Jon V)

This case points to the lack of control over instincts that lead to irrational decisions on Jon's part. His heroic instinct is not necessarily bad and it does not make him completely submissive, but when he starts killing an innocent person, it becomes difficult for him in the true sense of the word. He knows that the old man has no destiny but death, but he cannot overcome his stubborn morals and the feelings that arise from it to make the right decision.
Well, this issue is clearly depicted in the first three books, and for this reason, Martin had planned very difficult tests for him in A Dance with Dragons, which finally, brings us to this famous quote from Willian Faulkner:

“The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself”

We witnessed that his heart was cruelly contradicting himself, and if I'm honest, when this heroic instinct was awakened in him, often the right decisions were not made. Lately, his decisions have turned into a kind of dangerous gambling and he was taking big risks, which was caused by the conflict of his heart. he is a good swordswoman, a skilled diplomat, a capable tactician or maybe a smart strategist (I think he has this ability unlike Rob) but his big weakness did not allow him to have all of these together and from Jon makes a very good leader. In other words, when his blind instinct was at the top of everything, the pieces of the puzzle that were placed together (his abilities) would suddenly fall apart. In A Dance with Dragons, Jon had the same situation (unfortunately, he didn't have good advisors either).
At times, he would turn into the same boy that Aemon had warned him about, and at that time, he lacked a broad vision for the future of his decisions. This time, his heroic instincts immediately lead him to save the lives of innocent people (Alys Karstark, six thousand Wildlings in Hardhome and even his own poor sister).
As a result, first of all, it was Jon's decisions that made his brothers hate him more (even if this hatred was based on ignorance) and put Jon's life at risk, so that this hatred was out of control at the end of the story. He went out. So it is not correct to say that Jon should have thought about his own safety from the beginning to avoid the wrath of the Night's Watch men (he cannot make a decision first, then see the results of his work, and then think about his life. The problem must be solved in advance be)
For example, a little before Jon's decisions regarding the pink letter when about three thousand wildlings pass through the wall and their union with the Night's Watch, it seems that Bowen Marsh is not his usual complaint and is somehow affected by the great achievement of the Lord Commander. He has found himself and may trust him a little at this point in time. At least we can see that he does not have a plan or intention to assassinate Jon at this time (this happens at the end of his story).
In the end, we reach the point called the pink letter and Jon's reaction to the fact that he actually signs his own death consent. Although the sudden events that happen before Jon's assassination play a good role in distracting him and give Bowen Marsh and his companions a good opportunity to kill Jon.
Anyway, this time the fate of the boy killed the boy's work and somehow I will miss the boy. Jon will learn many lessons from his mistakes and this time his instinct may change completely.
I personally enjoyed the standards that Martin set for Jon Snow as necessary for his character's arc (unlike many of you, I even enjoyed Dany's story line in A Dance with Dragons).

Edited May 31, 2023 by Fist of the Dragon

[LongRider]

Jon made mistakes, sure, did he understand how corrupted and petty some of his officers had become?  No.  While I think executing Slynt was the right call, the unintended consequence of that was to turn Marsh and Alliser even more against him.  Tywin did his work well to subvert Jon's authority, and Jon never even knew about it. 

[astarkchoice]

They both mad some basic mistakes which in hindsight are bloopers.

Jon was 100% right to execute slynt as his rule cannot be openly questioned in that era. When men began questioning the wildling intigration he could have set their mind at ease by explining better and/or settting up a fallback plan should the wildlings betray them. He should also have listened to melisandre about an entourage...at a bare minimum sent the boar away and had ghost + 'hidden mance' with him armed at all times.

Danys mistakes are on a vaster scale but again shes playing the game at state level. She def should have left astopor is more stable hands esp given had she could easily have  lost the battle outside yunkai ! The  shed have needed a strong stable city to retreat safely too so it was a huge gamble .

The smartest move would have been allowing jorah  (already capable of running a major northern house) to run the city with say 1000 or so unsullied, some of the dothraki as scouts and began training up a full tims freeman army/cityguard  and a larger milita to back it (ie have each freeman do minimal training to help ensure city is safe.) Build proper  defences and begin prepping astopor to be a mini bravos etc (maybe reach out to the anti slave powerhouse of essos to assist in the 'nationbuilding' there)

She also shouldnt have punished at random in mereen nor stopped the pitfights  as it hurts city revenue, is agaisnt the citys most hallowed tradition , is against their religion(green grace may even be harpy) and of course ex gladiators  gave the harpy the sort of strong skilled manpower base capable of killing her men!!!

Edited June 1, 2023 by astarkchoice

[csuszka1948]

On 5/30/2023 at 10:40 PM, SeanF said:

Sure, and agreed.

Jon hate, and Daenerys hate, are equal and opposite forms of stupidity.

 

I think hating Dany is more understandable.

1) Her command in Astapor to 'kill Masters and men who wear a tokar, not harm children under 12' is easy to misenterpret and believe that it refers to every freedmen over 12. In fact, it refers to only non-working (tokar-wearing) adults and soldiers and she specifically asks the Unsullied to avoid harming everyone who is looking like a child, but it's easy to misread it as a total massacre

2) Even if she only orders the massacre of adult slavers, it's easy to critizise it for being unfair and make the argument that slavers were born and raised in this society and shouldn't be hold guilty for following it

3) The hellhole that Astapor turned into is generally blamed on her, even by herself.

I think by the same standards we should judge Stannis guilty for much of the destruction of the Wo5K - after all, if he bent the knee to Renly the war would have ended quickly - but Dany is the only character who gets such a blame for the unintended consequences of her actions, because she 'didn't have a long term plan' (did Stannis have one?) and other characters get justified because they were only 'doing their duty'.

4) She genuinely has some moments that feel cruel, such as the crucifixion of slave master leaders or ordering the torture of the wineseller's daughter out of anger

5) Dany is self-doubting and is getting more and more isolated as time passes in ADWD, while Jon is getting more and more confident. That's why people see Jon as a vastly superior ruler to Dany. I admit this has merits, though, but I think much of the difference in effectiveness comes down to the fact that Jon knows both the NW and the wildlings, while Meereen is alien to Dany and that Jon can rule in a much more defined and closed environment.

Dany thought that she can rule as a just, caring and compassionate queen, which is not a bad idea in general - in fact, if Cersei ruled like Dany tried to, the Lannister regime would be much more stable. However, Dany didn't recognize that the slavers will only compromise with her if she gives them very major concessions and that her actions in ASOS ('breaking' her agreement with Astapor, burning tokar of Yunkai envoy, crucifixion) earned her a very dishonorable reputation.

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

I think hating Dany is more understandable.

1) Her command in Astapor to 'kill Masters and men who wear a tokar, not harm children under 12' is easy to misenterpret and believe that it refers to every freedmen over 12. In fact, it refers to only non-working (tokar-wearing) adults and soldiers and she specifically asks the Unsullied to avoid harming everyone who is looking like a child, but it's easy to misread it as a total massacre

2) Even if she only orders the massacre of adult slavers, it's easy to critizise it for being unfair and make the argument that slavers were born and raised in this society and shouldn't be hold guilty for following it

3) The hellhole that Astapor turned into is generally blamed on her, even by herself.

I think by the same standards we should judge Stannis guilty for much of the destruction of the Wo5K - after all, if he bent the knee to Renly the war would have ended quickly - but Dany is the only character who gets such a blame for the unintended consequences of her actions, because she 'didn't have a long term plan' (did Stannis have one?) and other characters get justified because they were only 'doing their duty'.

4) She genuinely has some moments that feel cruel, such as the crucifixion of slave master leaders or ordering the torture of the wineseller's daughter out of anger

5) Dany is self-doubting and is getting more and more isolated as time passes in ADWD, while Jon is getting more and more confident. That's why people see Jon as a vastly superior ruler to Dany. I admit this has merits, though, but I think much of the difference in effectiveness comes down to the fact that Jon knows both the NW and the wildlings, while Meereen is alien to Dany and that Jon can rule in a much more defined and closed environment.

Dany thought that she can rule as a just, caring and compassionate queen, which is not a bad idea in general - in fact, if Cersei ruled like Dany tried to, the Lannister regime would be much more stable. However, Dany didn't recognize that the slavers will only compromise with her if she gives them very major concessions and that her actions in ASOS ('breaking' her agreement with Astapor, burning tokar of Yunkai envoy, crucifixion) earned her a very dishonorable reputation.

Sympathetic though he is, one can also condemn Robb for a lot of the harm that was caused.  There's a reason why the author included the parts about young women being hanged from trees, the BWB comparing Wolves with Lions, and the West being "paid back in kind" for what the Lannisters did in the Riverlands.

I think that the order at Astapor is actually wilfully misinterpreted, even sometimes described as "genocide".

I think also, because the story is overwhelmingly told from royal and noble points of view, it's easy to buy into the mindset that elite lives matter more.  The victims in TWOT5K are overwhelmingly, anonymous peasants.  Daenerys' victims are mostly part of an educated, articulate elite, who aren't backward about coming forward with their grievances, and criticisms of her rule.  Conversely, we only occasionally get the viewpoints of slaves and freedmen, who are actually the large majority of the population in Slavers Bay.

To my mind, massacres of the peasants are actually worse than anything that Daenerys does, because they completely lack agency, unlike the nobility.  If a slaver deserves to be spared because he knows no better (and IMHO these people are sadistic even by slaver standards) how much more does a peasant deserve to be spared being put to the sword by the dynasts' soldiers?