People who hate Jon..

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

Well, the watch is broke and has no food. We havent seen a banker from the Iron Bank in 3 books and he shows up at the wall....Dragonstone is close to Braavos, why didnt they go there when Stannis was at Braavos?

Back to the other topic, what deal should Jon have brokered with the Wildlings? Free passage?

Because the Tyrell's had taken Dragonstone?

I'm not saying he shouldn't have taken their wealth, im saying it's stupid to call something that people suffer for a plot gift.

[The Marquis de Leech]

He was the perfect dark horse candidate considering the division within the NW.

No he wasn't.

The best analogy for Night's Watch elections is the papal election. What invariably happens if you have a stalemate between two or more candidates is that they pick a respectable old geezer who can warm the seat for a couple of years before dying, at which point they come back and start again. By picking Jon, the factions were essentially denying themselves another chance at the job: a dark horse is one thing, but a dark horse who (for all they knew) would be the Lord Commander for the next sixty years? It makes no political sense.

[Chaircat Meow]

No he wasn't.

The best analogy for Night's Watch elections is the papal election. What invariably happens if you have a stalemate between two or more candidates is that they pick a respectable old geezer who can warm the seat for a couple of years before dying, at which point they come back and start again. By picking Jon, the factions were essentially denying themselves another chance at the job: a dark horse is one thing, but a dark horse who (for all they knew) would be the Lord Commander for the next sixty years? It makes no political sense.

Both factions hated the idea of serving under the other though and needed a respectable candidate to beat out Slynt. So a seat warming old duffer might not have cut it.

[Tagganaro]

No he wasn't.

The best analogy for Night's Watch elections is the papal election. What invariably happens if you have a stalemate between two or more candidates is that they pick a respectable old geezer who can warm the seat for a couple of years before dying, at which point they come back and start again. By picking Jon, the factions were essentially denying themselves another chance at the job: a dark horse is one thing, but a dark horse who (for all they knew) would be the Lord Commander for the next sixty years? It makes no political sense.

From what I understand, and from what Jon seems to think all the time, most of the good possible candidates died with Mormont and co. on the Fist. Jon thinks several times that the NW has lost too many good men. The election we see is a bit of a joke. We all know that Slynt would be terrible, so that leaves Mallister and Pyke as really the only 2 reasonable candidates. Since they hate each other and aren't a possibility, who is left? From what I remember, the only other candidates are Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck, both of whom we know a decent amount about from ADWD. And neither one is really a viable candidate- as Mallister points out right away. That leaves Jon, and it is very clear why Jon eventually wins out. He was being groomed for the position by Mormont, he pretty much singlehandedly held the Wall as leader against the Wildlings, and he's of Stark blood.

[Yeade]

Appreciate your replies and compliments, Budj, Scipio Africanus! Though, yeah, I'm a wordy bitch, lol. I cut my online discussion teeth on TheForce.Net's Jedi Council (temporarily down for a big move from being hosted at IGN), specifically the Expanded Universe Literature boards where novella-length posts are basically the norm in many threads. So, I'm accustomed to really high traffic forums with members willing to go ten rounds with me about almost pointlessly minute details. The closest I've come to that level of participation and contention here at Westeros.org is in the topics debating Jon's last ADWD chapter immediately following the novel's release. I think there simply isn't enough new ASOIAF material being published or filmed to keep up that sort of pace. Star Wars is, after all, a considerably larger franchise...

But I digress! In another thread, I actually characterize Bowen Marsh as an unholy combination of McClellan and Burnside, lol. Marsh has McClellan's administrative skill but also his squeamish aversion to high stakes risk-taking and bloodshed, his own in particular. My speculation is that Marsh's foray against the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls in ASOS is his first combat command and, while he rides out from Castle Black expecting glory, he instead finds that, to paraphrase Sherman, war is all hell. Upon his recovery from his injuries, Marsh is unsuitably cautious and conservative for developing strategy to see the Wall through an ice zombie apocalypse. Not to mention, his prejudices against the wildlings are deepened.

Furthermore, Marsh commits two mistakes in ASOS that he gets completely hung up on in a manner that reminds me of Burnside's inflexibility in meeting changing battlefield conditions (e.g. the late pontoons at Fredericksburg). First, Marsh allows Mance Rayder to divert his forces from the defense of Castle Black and its gate. He learns the importance of the gates from this experience but can't seem to recognize that, without adequate manpower, the Wall's length and flanks are vulnerable, too. Second, Marsh apparently chases the Weeper down into the gorge west of the Shadow Tower. Hence his preoccupation with holding the high ground in ADWD while, again, ignoring the fact that the NW alone can't really hold anything for long under concerted attacks by wildlings or the Others.

Marsh's biggest failure as a military thinker, IMO, is his inability to conceive of an active and intelligent enemy. Even supposing the Others do no more than take tea in the Haunted Forest after killing every last wildling beyond the Wall, wildling leaders like Tormund and the Weeper are hardly going to stop in their attempts to smash their way south. There are thousands of free folk to the NW's five or six hundred, and each assault on the Wall will bleed the black brothers as well as the wildlings. A few more engagements like those in ASOS--a hundred dead under Marsh, another dozen or so under Donal Noye and Jon--and the NW ceases to exist as an institution. Jon's decision to let the wildlings pass the Wall on the condition that they fight with the NW against the Others until spring not only deprives the Others of potential wights and mans the defenses of the realm but addresses the danger of attacks by wildlings desperate to escape the Others.

I agree that Jon has the makings of a good to great general. His tactical skill seems similar to Robb's, but he has a better head for strategy and politics than his late brother, IMO. Granted, Jon's long term strategic goals and how to achieve these are clear compared to Robb's in the War of the Five Kings--do whatever's necessary to guard the realms of men from the Others. Still, I expect Jon to be supreme allied commander of human coalition forces in the war for the dawn, so he needs to know how to win decisively or else the last scene of the series truly will be cold winds blowing snow over millions of deserted graves whose would-be occupants are off conquering Essos as the world falls into an endless ice age. :laugh:

Scipio Africanus, I'm curious what you think of Hardhome. I've been arguing for months that both expeditions--Cotter Pyke's seaborne one and the proposed ranging--are campaigns Jon has to make despite the possibility of incurring heavy casualties. I'd add that the best generals aren't afraid to spend resources to good purpose. They won't wait in hopes of there being another opportunity in the future if presented with a workable solution in the present. Eisenhower ordering the D-Day invasions ahead on July 6, chancy weather in the Channel be damned, and McClellan holding back his reserves (two whole corps, IIRC) at Antietam are prime examples of what to do and what not to, respectively.

Additionally, the best generals tend to be jealous of the initiative. Lee is famous for turning every offensive made by the Army of the Potomac during the first three years of the war into set piece battles he directs, and Grant has similarly aggressive instincts. Their 1864 confrontation in Virginia becomes a terrible bloodbath as a result. Jackson's storied 1862 campaign in the Shenandoah Valley owes much of its success to Jackson keeping disorganized Federal forces from concentrating against him. Ditto Grant's final campaign for Vicksburg. In fact, I feel a mobile and disciplined armed column could accomplish the same against the Others on the way to Hardhome. Though the retreat back to the Wall would probably resemble the evacuation of Edoras to Helm's Deep in the film version of TTT, with the fighting force breaking off to engage the enemy at a safe remove from the noncombatants. I figure a standby relief force (of giants?) at Eastwatch ready to meet the returning expedition at, say, a half day's march from the Wall would be very helpful in ensuring the success of this final and most difficult phase.

...I am way, way off-topic. That said, I'm too lazy to delete what I typed or hunt for a more appropriate thread to post in. :blush:

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

I agree with your many, many words :D

[The Marquis de Leech]

From what I understand, and from what Jon seems to think all the time, most of the good possible candidates died with Mormont and co. on the Fist. Jon thinks several times that the NW has lost too many good men. The election we see is a bit of a joke. We all know that Slynt would be terrible, so that leaves Mallister and Pyke as really the only 2 reasonable candidates. Since they hate each other and aren't a possibility, who is left? From what I remember, the only other candidates are Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck, both of whom we know a decent amount about from ADWD. And neither one is really a viable candidate- as Mallister points out right away. That leaves Jon, and it is very clear why Jon eventually wins out. He was being groomed for the position by Mormont, he pretty much singlehandedly held the Wall as leader against the Wildlings, and he's of Stark blood.

Bearing in mind, of course, that Stark blood is arguably a liability in the current environment (what with Tywin's none-too-subtle hints in his letter), and that Jon is 16 and has spent bugger-all time on the Wall, and that the position is freely elected (Mormont could have groomed him all he liked - it doesn't change the selection process), and that Jon has accusations of desertion hanging over him, I still don't see the reason for Jon getting it beyond blatant authorial fiat.

In this situation you don't need a 'great' leader (there's none available), you just need a non-senile version of Ser Wynton Stout to sit in the chair and keep things ticking over for another couple of years, at which point Mallister and Pyke can try again. Were Bowen Marsh twenty years older, he'd probably be an ideal caretaker. But that would be a realistic scenario. Far more realistic than the selection of Jon, a gamble on a politically dubious 16 year old whom the Watch could be potentially stuck with for the next sixty years.

[Mulled Wino]

Because they were still counting on the Lannisters to repay their debt...Cersei didn't inform them until AFFC that she wasn't going to repay them. Then they went to find Stannis, who was at the Wall when the Bankers left but by that time had left the Wall. Pretty simple really, in terms of being a logical plot progression. It's not out of left-field, if it is then everything that happens in a book is out of left field. Bank wants to get paid, goes to next claimant for Throne in hopes he repays them, said claimant is at the Wall where Jon is, Bank meets Jon, Bank works out deal with Jon...Not to hard to understand imo.

Its possible my chronology is bad, but I'm under the impression that she declined to pay the Iron Bank quite some time before this dude shows up. Multiple times.

[SerBrightflame]

In DwD, he is an absolute asshole. I didn't mind him in GoT, but after that he made indifferent to the fate of the Starks. Except for Sansa.

[Scipio Africanus]

No he wasn't.

The best analogy for Night's Watch elections is the papal election. What invariably happens if you have a stalemate between two or more candidates is that they pick a respectable old geezer who can warm the seat for a couple of years before dying, at which point they come back and start again. By picking Jon, the factions were essentially denying themselves another chance at the job: a dark horse is one thing, but a dark horse who (for all they knew) would be the Lord Commander for the next sixty years? It makes no political sense.

Dark horses are usually elected because there are problems with your more well known candidates, and when the subsequent election becomes deadlocked. Which is exactly what happened with Jon.

Pyke and Mallister hated each other's guts and apparently their following would not back the opposite candidate. So who else then would they elect? Yeah guys like Slynt. The only guy there who spent LESS time at the Wall then Jon. And who has some...problems with his own cadidacy.

That Thorne followed him was more due to his anti-Jon policy rather then Slynt's charisma. Jon Snow is not without his own following, especially at Castle Black. He was not untirely an unknown candidate.

Jon is still Eddard's son, bastard or no. Apparently the NW rangers perfer picking someone of nobility. Jon Snow became the perfect dark horse candidate. It only took a bit of convincing and a few white lies by Sam, which happens in real politics as well.

Take Lincoln's nomination as Republican candidate for the presidancy in 1860. Lincoln was largely unknown with the party big-wigs, the Bosses of their political machines in New England cities. Their initial candidates were guys like Chase, Fremont and Seward. They were way more famous at that time and primed in media for the job. However all had their issues, either personal or politically (aka they were too radical etc). Then someone named Lincoln as a candidate, the guy from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. BECAUSE he was relatively unknown (and therefor had little reputation) he was starting to look good. Not only that he wasn't a super radical and he could appeal to the common man. The rest is history.

I'm curious what you think of Hardhome. I've been arguing for months that both expeditions--Cotter Pyke's seaborne one and the proposed ranging--are campaigns Jon has to make despite the possibility of incurring heavy casualties.

Jon Snow had to do it. He was the only one looking at the bigger picture. Letting all those Wildlings die then and there was only going to pay itself forward in the long run, because the amount of wights the NW would've had to fight would've been more then what, trippled?

Good generals always try to prevent their enemies from massing against them. And that's exactly what would've happened if Jon would've let those people die, the Others would've had more canon meat to throw at the Wall. That there's a good chance of faillure, well, it's better to try. Even if you save the few of your forces by not sending them to Hardhome, you'd still be outnumbered and outgunned at the end of the day.

ps comparing Marsh to Burnside is a bit harsh on Burnside. He was by all accounts well-liked and no one questioned his loyalty or patriotism. He wasn't out to backstab everyone on the way to the top either. He simply wasn't qualified to lead anything bigger then a brigade or a very small army. However he himself would've admitted that. Yet he neve shirked away from his duties when they call on him.

Marsh is a scheming dim-witted backstabbing fellow with little to any redeeming qualities found in Burnside.

[Maia]

I think that the first naval expedition to Hardhome was a good idea (though it may have been better to leave one, smallest ship in reserve, perhaps), but the second one would have been a huge mistake.

The Others are going to have tens of thousands of wights anyway - Mance's forces were huge and a lot of them were scattered and subsequently killed and raised, not to mention all the people whom he failed to convince. A few hundreds in Hardhome wouldn't have affected the ratio significantly.

Sending ships made sense - learn what was happening there and get an idea about possible Other activity, save as many people as possible. Quickly in, quickly out, repeat if feasible.

Land- trek would have been another matter entirely. It would have been very dangerous and slow and would have risked further drastic depletion of NW ranks. Or if you sent wildlings that were admitted through the Wall, you'd just furnish the Others with more bodies. Loss of scarce, irreplaceable resources such as horses and food shouldn't be underestimated either. And the worst thing is that even in the unlikely event that expedition could return alive, they would have been able to save only very few people. Folk in Hardhome were already weak and starving, weren't they? How many could have survived the long, hard trek to the Wall? While being harried by the Others?

No, IMHO Jon didn't quite kill the boy, yet. A leader must learn when to cut his losses. It is impossible to save everybody in such a situation, no matter how hard one tries.

Re: contrivance of Jon's election, even given how Mormont, inexplicably, didn't leave a single half-way decent officer behind, I find it strange that they didn't consider somebody lowborn, but old and respected as a compromise candidate, as happened during the Papal elections, too.

Certainly more plausible than picking an inexperienced 16-year old, with charge of treason hanging over his head and extremely dubious political connections for current climate.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

I'm not sure how anyone can say Hardholme was even an option. He had to do that. There would have been 10,000 wights across the bay from Eastwatch and there ain't no magic keeping them out of the water according to the attacks on the boats. It's another case of Marsh and co. refusing to see what was right f'in in front of them.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

Re: contrivance of Jon's election, even given how Mormont, inexplicably, didn't leave a single half-way decent officer behind, I find it strange that they didn't consider somebody lowborn, but old and respected as a compromise candidate, as happened during the Papal elections, too.

Certainly more plausible than picking an inexperienced 16-year old, with charge of treason hanging over his head and extremely dubious political connections for current climate.

I think that was just the problem, all the old and respected candidates were either in the running or dead. The Watch was down to what, maybe 450, after all those battles and in an organization full of cowards and criminals, the good die first.

[Tagganaro]

Bearing in mind, of course, that Stark blood is arguably a liability in the current environment (what with Tywin's none-too-subtle hints in his letter), and that Jon is 16 and has spent bugger-all time on the Wall, and that the position is freely elected (Mormont could have groomed him all he liked - it doesn't change the selection process), and that Jon has accusations of desertion hanging over him, I still don't see the reason for Jon getting it beyond blatant authorial fiat.

In this situation you don't need a 'great' leader (there's none available), you just need a non-senile version of Ser Wynton Stout to sit in the chair and keep things ticking over for another couple of years, at which point Mallister and Pyke can try again. Were Bowen Marsh twenty years older, he'd probably be an ideal caretaker. But that would be a realistic scenario. Far more realistic than the selection of Jon, a gamble on a politically dubious 16 year old whom the Watch could be potentially stuck with for the next sixty years.

Stark blood would never be a liability in the North, no matter what the environment was. Regardless, noble blood is never a liability in such an election. It can only help. And I can only speak to what Sam used to convince Pyke and Mallister of Jon's candidacy. The fact that Jon was trained under Mormont is a major factor in convincing Mallister to vote for him (and logicallly speaking, why wouldn't it be?).

And what "situation" are you referring to? The one where the very existence of the NW is being threatened by numerous forces, including the King on the Iron Throne, the wildlings beyond the Wall, and a return of an age-old army of Ice demons that seems intent on destroying the Wall and the Watch? That doesn't seem like the type of situation for some place-holder to take the job.

And again, Jon is by far the closest thing they have to a great leader. He has built up a serious rep working under Mormont and even Qhorin, and he was essentially the de facto LC while holding the Wildlings off until Stannis came. It's easy to see why and how Jon was elected imo (and all these points are made to and accepted by Mallister and Pyke).

[Winterfellian]

Re: contrivance of Jon's election, even given how Mormont, inexplicably, didn't leave a single half-way decent officer behind, I find it strange that they didn't consider somebody lowborn, but old and respected as a compromise candidate, as happened during the Papal elections, too.

Certainly more plausible than picking an inexperienced 16-year old, with charge of treason hanging over his head and extremely dubious political connections for current climate.

Mormont himself told Tyrion (way before the ranging) that he didn't have this kind of competent officers you are speaking of. He even said that he had to be as blind as maester Aemon not to see Marsh and Yarwick for what they were hence the reason he chose to groom Jon. This isn't contrived because is not as if the Night's Watch lost every good officer in a matter of weeks. It is very clear since the beggining of the story that the Night Watch has been in a decaying process for hundreds of years now and that now it serves as some sort of penal colony. Is it contrived to think that an organization consisting mostly of rapers, thieves, murderers, etc is lacking good officers, specially considering the death toll in Mormont's last ranging? I don't thinlk so.

About electing a lowborn, do you really think this would have been wise considering they have a King staying in the wall? Considering the high levels of illiteracy and lack of experience most of the youths we have seen in the wall, if they wanted someone young then Jon was the best option. Why exactly do you thing a lowborn would have been the best option? I don't see how unless he had good eperience on the wall like Cotter Pyke; and he was already one of the candidates.

I don't think the papal elections are a good analogy. Because, even if their election was compromised, they were certainly good options for them to choose, which isn't the case in the Night's Watch.

You seem to argue that they should have compromised in someone old and respected. This probably would have been the best solution. But where is this person? Benjen Stark, Noyle, along with many of the seasoned rangers are dead. The best you have are Mallister and Pyke and they are already competing for the job, neither willing to compromise for the sake of the other.

As for choosing Jon, if Mallister and Cotter Pyke weren't willing to compromise (their mutual hate stablished back in AGOT) what were the other options? Slynt? Marsh? Yarcwick? Dolorous Ed? There simply wasn't one.

Also, is interesting that the only lie Sam told Mallister and Pyke is that Stannis was going to favor one over the other. All of the other things he told them (and what convinced them to compromise for Jon) were true. Sam told Mallister that Jon was castle bred and trained,also, he appealed to Malister's concern for good blood and told him that Jon while a bastard had a lord for a father and a king for a brother. All of this things are true.

To Pyke he told him Jon was a bastard like himself, but also someone that had proved himself a warrior when the Wall was under attack and Lord Mormont's squire. Again, all of these things are true. So it wasn't just the lie Sam told but the truth what truly motivated them to see Jon as a compromise candidate.

[David Selig]

So let me get this straight - you really don't see why choosing a freaking 16 year old to lead an organisation facing the biggest crisis in its history is implausible and contrived? OK...

[Winterfellian]

So let me get this straight - you really don't see why choosing afreaking 16 year old to lead an organisation facing the biggest crisis in its history is implausible and contrived? OK...

Is your problem Jon being elected at 16? Considering this is a society where at that age you're a man grown and a girl is ready to be shipped off to an arranged marriage as soon as she has her period, why is this more contrived than other circumstances? For example, Tywin was named hand of the entire realm at around this age, why is Jon's election more contrived?

I admit there is some contrivance because after all this is a story. However is not as if Jon was elected out of the blue without any kind of foreshadowing. Martin did a good job removing or adding elements that allowed this arch to flow more naturally:

- The slow decay and lack of good officers and conditions in the wall was clearly stablished since the first book and then reaffirmed in later books

-Mormont's conviction of the lack of someone to succeed him was stablished in AGOT in a Tyrion chapter

- Mallister and Pyke's mutual hate was stablished back in AGOT. Is not as if they showed up in ASOS conveniently hating each other without any foreshadowing

- Death or disappeareance of prominent officers. Martin explicitly wrote how many men for were going on the ranging mission so that we understand more clearly just how many died in the Fist of the First Men and in Craster's keep.

- Mormont personally requesting Jon as a squire the day after Jon gave Maester Aemon the speech of how a Maester's chain needs all sort of metals just like a land needs all sort of people and how this is a principle that needs to be applied at the wall as well.

- Jon helping and protecting Sam back in AGOT secured Sam's respect for him. When Jon helped him he didn't expected anything in return. He just did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.

I could go on, but my point is that all the things I listed contributed to prepare the ground for Jon's election. It didn't happen out of the blue.

[Tagganaro]

So let me get this straight - you really don't see why choosing afreaking 16 year old to lead an organisation facing the biggest crisis in its history is implausible and contrived? OK...

lol. What? Why do you keep coming back to his age? A 16 year old is essentially a man grown in Westeros. Robb was King in the North at a younger age, Tommen and Joffrey were both Kings (and Joffrey did a fair amount of "ruling").

To quote Jon from one of his ADWD chapters, "Are you blind or do you just refuse to see the facts?" I've given several reasons why Jon is easily the most "plausible" candidate, the exact same reasons that are used by Sam and everyone else to justify his leadership. He was groomed for the spot by the widely and well respected LC Mormont, he was essentially de facto LC and displayed great leadership fighting off the Wildlings before Stannis arrived, he has ridden with the legendary Qhorin Halfhand (and was basically excused for any crimes related to it by Aemon and Donal Noye), he saved the Wall by warning them of the Magnar's approach, and he saved LC Mormont from from 2 wights in a widely known and respected incident. Oh, and not to mention he is of "royal" blood and his uncle is one of the most well-respected members of the NW.

If your only response to that is, "but he's 16 or they should have selected a placeholder old man of low birth", then I'd say the reasons are very, very clear and not contrived at all why Jon was elected.

[Scipio Africanus]

Certainly more plausible than picking an inexperienced 16-year old, with charge of treason hanging over his head and extremely dubious political connections for current climate.

I don't understand the problem of age, Alexander III of Macedon was 20 when he was proclaimed king and he almost immediately started conquering Persia. Before that he participated in his father's Greek campaign. At Gaugemela, where he decisively destroyed the Persians, he was 25. Edward the Black Prince campaigned with his dad at Crecy when he was 16 performing with distinction, he was 26 when he led his army at Pointiers.

Age sometimes really isn't an issue.

[David Selig]

lol. What? Why do you keep coming back to his age? A 16 year old is essentially a man grown in Westeros. Robb was King in the North at a younger age, Tommen and Joffrey were both Kings (and Joffrey did a fair amount of "ruling").

And 18 is a man grown in our society, but I don't see 18 year old elected for any kind of public office, chosen for CEOs of even small companies, or being made generals, do you? Besides, inheriting a title in a feudal society is very different from winning the elections for LC.

Plus, it's not just the age which was a problem for Jon. There was a strong suspicion that he was a turncloak. Slynt, one of the most popular candidates was openly promising he'd hang Jon as traitor. Tywin Lannister, the main power in the realm at the time, made it quite clear to the NW that he'd give them help (which they desperately needed) only if they choose the candidate he was backing (Slynt). The new ruling House in the North Bolton obviously wouldn't like a son of Ned Stark to be the LC and the Watch needed their support too. Yet they ignored all this and chose Jon Snow. Jon's track record as a sworn brother include trying to kill a surerior officer (Thorne), something which is a serious offence even in a modern army. It's illogical.

Compared to all this, you have things like "he has ridden with the legendary Qhorin Halfhand" - so what, probably half the rangers in the NW had done it. He was chosen by Mormont for his potential successor - but Mormont was the LC who led the NW to the brink of disaster with his "bright" idea to take most of its strength to the Fist and stay there, so his judgement was nothing to write home about.