People who hate Jon..

[Chaircat Meow]

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 Mester'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.

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.

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.

I agree completely.

I think this is the best RL example of someone being chosen as a military leader, when 15, while the kingdom in question faced the gravest crisis of its history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_IV_of_Jerusalem

[Maia]

Mormont didn't groom Jon to be his _immediate_ successor, I don't think. After all, Benjen wasn't chosen over Mormont during the previous elections either, very likely due to his comparative youth.

And yes, decent officers were being bumped off right and left, starting with Jaremy Rykker, but still at the time of the ranging there was, IIRC, Endrew Tarth, the new master-at-arms, who seemed decent, etc. If Mormont had chosen to leave a possible successor at CB, as would have only been logical, this situation could have been easily avoided. After all, he knew about Mallister and Pyke antagonism and should have been prepared an alternative. Or taken one of them along on his ranging.

But yes, even so, a respected old lowborn man, such as, for instance, Dywen would have made more sense than Jon, with his extreme youth, accusations against him and political problems attached. After all, Cotter Pyke was illiterate too, IIRC, and still cosidered a viable candidate.

Now, if Starks had still been in power, I could have seen Jon's election being plausible as a sop to them and an attempt to garner some extra support from them, like with previous boy LCs. But as it was.... no.

[qpishaw]

Because Jon can't keep to his vows. That's my reason for hating the character.

Who hasn't??? Please name a character that HAS kept their vows... whether it be marriage (almost everyone); protection of king,(including Jamie); loyalty (Theon to Robb); knight's honor (Ser Jorah), etc.

The inward struggle of each chartacter rounds out their own unique personality traits.

Failure to do so results in a boring storyline. I enjoy Martin's twists and turns, otherwise I wouldn' t read the books/ watch.

[qpishaw]

I never, ever understood the criticism of the so-called "plot gifts" that Jon gets, or why they're more egregious than Dany getting the Unsullied (in my opinion, the single biggest "give me a goddamn break" contrivance in the series, bar none) or Tyrion not dying eleventy billion times before now or Arya getting a magic "Pass Go and Collect $200" coin. Jon got a direwolf pup, only after he was willing to go without one just so the others wouldn't be killed outright. He got a Valyrian sword for saving Mormont, something he can't pass down as an heirloom just by virtue of being in the Watch. And he was elected — through no wish of his own — to the Lord Commander position, something he didn't want and which it turns out (see: ADWD) is hardly a "gift." People are getting their knickers twisted over that, when thousands of die-hard super-eunuchs are changing hands based on fuck all and dwarfs keep talking themselves out of death sentence after death sentence? I call shenanigans.

As someone else said, if you're a main character in this story and you're still alive, you've gotten a plot contrivance here and there. That's just how it is. Some people think Jon's arc is boring — I don't see how, but that's me. Other people are enthralled by arcs that I think are boring. That's just how it is. But when people say things like, "He's never had to make a hard choice," I have to wonder what it is that they're reading, exactly. 'Cause it's not ADWD, where it's hard choice after hard choice — let them in or don't, how to feed everyone, how to diplomatically write to the competing kings, how to placate Stannis, how to deal with Melisandre, how to garrison the Wall, how to keep factions from fighting, and so on and on.

I like Jon a lot and make no bones about it. I like that he's fundamentally decent, I like that he has a spine and a good sense of right and wrong, I like that he has yet to commit wholesale atrocities or torture, I like that he's on the ground and getting hands-on with the Watch when he takes it over, not hiding out in some tower on high. I like that he carries out his own sentences. I like that he tries to be fair and consistent, I like that he knows how to take good advice and I like how he came to leadership based on an election, not because he decided he should do it just because. Basically, I like him for all the things that set him apart from Dany.

ETA: And yeah, from what I've seen, I think a lot of the Jon disdain/indifference comes from plain old contrarianism. "Look how cool and cutting edge I am for thinking Jon Snow's boring." Yawn.

Amen, sister!

[Winterfellian]

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.

Education in ASOIAF is not the same as in our modern world. Robb, Tywin are both examples of men who took big responsabilities when they were around the same age Jon is now. Robb was chosen as King in the North by his own lords and Tywin was chosen Hand of the King by Aereys. They didn't inherit the title. Also, it was stablished in the books Jon wasn't the youngest to be elected LC.

Even in our own history, there have been young leaders such as Alexander the great.

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.

How many buyed this suspicion aside from Slynt and his cronies? When Jon first arrived, he was cleared by 2 important figures in the Watch, Aemon and Donal Noyle. During the ensuing fight no one challenge him again for this charges so is probable they didn't believe it or accepted the word of the 2 mentors figures who have already acquitted Jon. Neither Mallister or Cotter bothered with him so they probably thought him innocent. It was always Slynt and his gang and the book does imply their followers do considered Jon a traitor; there were just outnumbered by those who didn't.

About Tywin's interference, how many aside from Marsh were aware of this? If Tywin was offering this bribe why wasn't every single officer running to vote for Slynt? It is very clear in the book just how many officers were supporting Mallister and Cotter. Why were all this officers supporting their respective candidates and not Slynt then? This means either they didn't know or simply refused to be cowed by Tywin in an effort to mantain their independence regarding the affairs of the realm or even that they saw Slynt for what he was and refused to be lead by such a man.

In the end it was the combined numbers of Mallister and Cotter's officers who ended granting Jon the command, so no contrivance there. I think it is even mentioned in the books the dislike most of the officers had for Slynt, whom they saw as a puppet new comer.

About Bolton, the Night's Watch takes no part. Is there evidence about Bolton actually being a friend to the watch? They were already ignoring Stannis (who is impatiently waiting their decision right there on the wall) Tywin's actions to bribe them, so why should Bolton made any difference? I took it that with all the political upheaval they needed to reaffirm their position of neutrality. It was only cowards like Marsh who seemed to think it was better to cast their lot with the strongest, but not every member of the Night's Watch is a Bowen Marsh.

[Michael Snow]

I think the OP may have posted this for attention. If he's spent more than ten minutes browsing the forum, he'd know that Jon Snow is incredibly talked about and held in high esteem by most posters here. He's not my favourite or anything... I'm Canadian, so I figured my bastard name was Snow. Michael Snow. Yeah...

[Scipio Africanus]

Who hasn't??? Please name a character that HAS kept their vows... whether it be marriage (almost everyone); protection of king,(including Jamie); loyalty (Theon to Robb); knight's honor (Ser Jorah), etc.

The inward struggle of each chartacter rounds out their own unique personality traits.

Failure to do so results in a boring storyline. I enjoy Martin's twists and turns, otherwise I wouldn' t read the books/ watch.

Haha yes that's pretty much the main theme in ASOFAI, people breaking their oaths and promises and basically lie their asses off. Even Eddard Stark broke his promise to king Bob.

If you hate Jon for having trouble with his vows then you really hate almost all the characters in the book because each and every one of them has lied, cheated, backstabbed, underdealed and broke their oath at least once.

[qpishaw]

On the other hand trying to make everybody love you or submit your decisions to the judgement of others doesn't guaranteed that you are going to accomplish your goals;

Did somebody say election year??

[Maia]

Tywin was 20 when he became Hand of the King. Still very young, of course, but those 4 years make a lot of difference in ASOIAF world as they did iRL too. I wouldn't have said a word against Jon's election if it happened after the 5-year gap, as initially intended, I assume.

Re: Slynt, people weren't lining up because he had just arrived _and_ because it was clear that they'd have to get rid of Stannis, somehow, to get Tywin's support. Also, Tywin's promise was rather oblique, rather than something concrete, that could be counted on in "paying debts" category.

[Tagganaro]

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.

I've just said why 18 is old in Westeros. Robb was King at 16, there had been something like 10 LC's elected that were younger than Jon, etc. And it really is not that different- especially considering that a large contingent of voters (Pretty much all of Mallister's faction) would only throw themselves behind someone of high birth and learning. It's not nearly the same as modern day U.S. It seems from what we know, very few LC's have risen from lower stations. Mostly lordlings and such (also emphasized by the inexperienced Waymar Royce having command over more experienced rangers in the Prologue to AGOT).

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.

As I had also already stated, Jon had been excused for those crimes by highly respected NW members Master Aemon and Donal Noye. And why care so much about Tywin Lannister when you have another King (Stannis) directly at the Wall as well threatening them. And Stannis made it clear what he thought of Janos Slynt (and so did Mallister). Plus most of the NW members who aren't in Slynt/Thorne campus know all this to be total bs. Jon has several friends in the NW who he heroically helped hold the Wall against the Wildlings as leader.

Compared to all this, you have things like "he has ridden with the legendary Qhorin Halfhand" - so what, probably half the rabgers 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.

I really don't see how what Mormont actually did is relevant or his judgment. What matters is his reputation as a beloved leader who personally groomed Jon for the role (a point Sam makes to Mallister that he agrees with).

Compared to all what....?

On Jon's side, you have:

Saved Wall against Wildlings as de facto LC

Royal Blood (Stark blood and nephew of Well-respected First Ranger Benjen)

Mormont's steward (largely seen as a grooming role for potential LC)

Qhorin Halfhand (legend in NW who trusted Jon enough to give his life to him, which Jon then repayed by saving the Wall against the wildlings)

Castle-trained, educated

Not despised by Stannis, the King who is directly threatening the NW

Against Jon, you have:

Old man, elected as placeholder.

No high birth, no education and castle training.

Baseless rumors by largely despised Janos Slynt and definitely largely despised Alliser Thorne, which were discredited by largely respected and well-liked Aemon and Donal Noye

Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck as other 2 candidates.

I'm really, really failing to see any implausibility as to why Jon would be elected.

[David Selig]

In the end it was the combined numbers of Mallister and Cotter's officers who ended granting Jon the command, so no contrivance there.

Sure, it wasn't contrived at all that Sam tricked the two top officers of the watch with an obvious lie which wouldn't have worked in a high school class president election...

About Tywin's interference, how many aside from Marsh were aware of this?

A lot since Bowen Marsh made the letter publicly known.

See, my problem isn't that they had to chose Slynt necessarily because of Tywin's letter. He had its fair of drawbacks to his candidature (zero experience at the Wall, etc). But choosing Ned Stark's bastard son after the war and the RW is basically a "screw you" gesture towards the Lannisters and the Boltons at a time the NW desperately needed their support. It would've made a whole lot more sense to chose a more neutral figure if they didn't want Slynt, who wouldn't reduce drastically the chance to get help from the Lannisters and the Boltons.

I've just said why 18 is old in Westeros. Robb was King at 16, there had been something like 10 LC's elected that were younger than Jon, etc.

Robb inherited his title (mostly, he upgraded it a bit, but only because he was already Lord of the North). Totally different case. All those other LC were chosen because of the backing of the Starks, the ruling House in the North at the time. Jon's case is exactly the opposite.

[kissdbyfire]

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.

But why should they consider someone just because they are older? Or why is it a problem that Jon is young? It's not like Jon was the youngest ever LC.

AFfC, chapter 5, Samwell I:

"My lord, when I was looking through the annals I came on another boy commander. Four hundred years before the Conquest. Osric Stark was ten when he was chosen, but he served for sixty years. That’s four, my lord. You’re not even close to being the youngest ever chosen. You’re fifth youngest, so far.”

As to the 'charge of treason', those who were involved in the 'plot' to elect Jon were well aware that there had been no treason whatsoever. Also, I'm sure this must have been mentioned upthread, but the whole idea came from maester Aemon, really. He was the one who planted the idea in Sam's mind. And I can't think of anyone more experienced, or more dedicated to the NW.

We have his own words:

ADwD, chapter 7, Jon II:

"He knew what he would face today, and found himself tossing restlessly as he brooded on Maester Aemon’s final words. “Allow me to give my lord one last piece of counsel,” the old man had said, “the same counsel that I once gave my brother when we parted for the last time. He was three-and-thirty when the Great Council chose him to mount the Iron Throne. A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born.” The old man felt Jon’s face. “You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is a crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born.”

[Winterfellian]

Sure, it wasn't contrived at all that Sam tricked the two top officers of the watch with an obvious lie which wouldn't have worked in a high school class president election...

I think you ignored one of my last posts about this. The above part I wrote it in regards of your argument of why didn't the Night Watch voted for Slynt given Tywin's bribe.

The only lie Sam told was to tell them that Stannis was going to appoint the other. Was this a trick? Yes. But it is not the trick that convince them in the end. Evertything else he told them was true.

To Mallister, who is from noble birth he told him that Jon, though a bastard, was of old blood, that his father had been the Lord of Winterfell and his brother the King in the North. Mallister's objections regarding Cotter pyke was that he wasn't fit to be a lord and to deal with Kings due to his upbringing. Sam told him that Jon had been Castle bred, that he had learned letters from a maester and arms from a knight.That he was educated and well spoken. All of this things are true. After Sam told him this Mallister said he will considered Jon.

To Cotter Pyke he told him that Jon, unlike Mallister, was a bastard like himself, a fighter, someone who took the command when Donal fell and who had been Lord Mormont's squire (not steward). Again, every one of this things are true.

It was all this truths together that appealed to Mallister and Cotter Pyke separately and allowed them to agreed on Jon as a compromise candidate.

ETA: Do you honestly believe that if Sam had told that same lie but instead of Jon he would have proposed Marsh, Yarwick or another brother as a compromise candidate, that Mallister and Pyke would have agreed?

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

Robb inherited his title (mostly, he upgraded it a bit, but only because he was already Lord of the North). Totally different case. All those other LC were chosen because of the backing of the Starks, the ruling House in the North at the time. Jon's case is exactly the opposite.

This statement is why I don't take your argument seriously. You have no way of knowing if any of those younger officers were backed by the Starks, except for the Stark himself and even then it isn't a given. Jon is the son of their beloved former liege lord and brother of their King. He was in good favor and pretty much a Stark.

[Maia]

This statement is why I don't take your argument seriously. You have no way of knowing if any of those younger officers were backed by the Starks, except for the Stark himself and even then it isn't a given.

Um, are you claiming with the straight face that a _10 year old_ could have objectively been the best available leader of an organization 10K strong? And that the fact that _all_ the youngster LCs were scions of the geographically closest royal House was by chance, rather than the result of pressure/bribery by the Starks, who used NW like iRL nobles often used church offices and attached benefices?

[Tagganaro]

A lot since Bowen Marsh made the letter publicly known.

See, my problem isn't that they had to chose Slynt necessarily because of Tywin's letter. He had its fair of drawbacks to his candidature (zero experience at the Wall, etc). But choosing Ned Stark's bastard son after the war and the RW is basically a "screw you" gesture towards the Lannisters and the Boltons at a time the NW desperately needed their support. It would've made a whole lot more sense to chose a more neutral figure if they didn't want Slynt, who wouldn't reduce drastically the chance to get help from the Lannisters and the Boltons.

Again, why? The King that matters is not Tywin or the Boltons and Freys, it is Stannis, you know, the King who is staying at the freaking Wall with an army demanding that they settle on a vote for LC. And why count on help from Tywin/Lannisters now when they asked them 100's of times before and never gotten any, while the King at the Wall was the only King to give them any support when they most needed it.

Robb inherited his title (mostly, he upgraded it a bit, but only because he was already Lord of the North). Totally different case. All those other LC were chosen because of the backing of the Starks, the ruling House in the North at the time. Jon's case is exactly the opposite.

And Jon didn't "inherit" his title as well? I've already pointed out that high birth still counts for a ton on the Wall, an argument you seem to have ignored. And again, why does the ruling house of the North matter when they are distant and far off when there is a King directly in the room with them all, threatening the existence of the NW and trashing Janos Slynt?

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

Um, are you claiming with the straight face that a _10 year old_ could have objectively been the best available leader of an organization 10K strong? And that the fact that _all_ the youngster LCs were scions of the geographically closest royal House was by chance, rather than the result of pressure/bribery by the Starks, who used NW like iRL nobles often used church offices and attached benefices?

Nope, not even sure how you came up with that tbh. Also where are you getting the information you're using to make these assumptions? I don't recall anywhere in the text that named the other young commanders aside from the Stark boy.

http://awoiaf.wester...e_Night's_Watch

certainly doesn't help backup the wild claims you're making. everything in your post is made up.

[Yeade]

Maia, for starters, I believe there are five to six thousand wildlings stranded at Hardhome. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of ADWD on hand, so if another poster could check my figures, it'd be much appreciated.

These wildlings may be mostly women and children, but women and children are not useless to the Wall. They can serve as support troops--foraging and cooking, maintaining the castles, fletching arrows, tending to livestock and the wounded--freeing up every able-bodied man and spearwife for the defenses. And, should the winter indeed last decades, children will grow to provide the NW with a ready source of new recruits. OTOH, even the weakest starved wildling girl can probably twist a man's head off with her bare hands given the unnatural strength and nigh invulnerability of the undead. Also, depending on what Sam's told Jon of Gilly's suspicions about the fate of Craster's sons, leaving babes to the Others could mean the creation of more Others, and that's obviously a Very Bad Thing.

At best, I think Jon can send a couple hundred men to relieve Hardhome and, if such numbers won't make much of a difference attacking the Wall when the Others have presumably added tens of thousands of wights to their army already, why is it assumed that these men would be decisive in defending the Wall? Seems to me Jon's stuck on the losing end of the strategic situation no matter how he chooses to deploy his available forces unless the North rallies to him. As the side inferior by almost every conceivable military standard, Jon must gamble on whatever opportunities arise to improve his lot, IMO, or he cannot expect to survive, never mind victory in any sense of the word.

I find many detractors of a ranging to Hardhome base the argument that it's totally infeasible on the failure of Mormont's expedition. However, I feel the two campaigns are not comparable on several key points:

1) The terrain of Mormont's route through the Haunted Forest is significantly more difficult than that of the quickest way to Hardhome along the coast of the Shivering Sea from Eastwatch. Deep snow cover is usually brought up as an obstacle, but it can also be an asset provided Jon equips the ranging with snowshoes, skis, and sledges that take advantage of packed snow on the ground to speed movement. I've wondered if this isn't the reason why GRRM has Jon note the effectiveness of the sleds from the Frozen Shore when the wildlings cross the Wall.

2) Mormont does not expect to face enemies who are impervious to conventional weapons at the Fist of the First Men. The NW's heaviest casualties are incurred trying to hold a static position, then breaking out of a surrounding cordon of wights. The retreat to Craster's Keep is disordered, and the subsequent betrayal there shatters what's left of the ranging's cohesiveness. Mance Rayder's army suffers a similar dissolution after being defeated by Stannis and, in both cases, little bands of stragglers prove easy prey for the Others. A rescue mission to Hardhome, though, would no doubt be primarily supplied with obsidian, fire arrows, oil and pitch. The men would be constantly on the move and not like to stray.

3) Never before has the NW had the benefit of the wildlings' tactical expertise in fending off wights. Tormund and five hundred to a thousand fighters successfully shepherd twice their numbers of noncombatants to the Wall's protection. Mance Rayder before that marches entire communities from the Frostfangs to the Wall, where he proceeds to besiege Castle Black, while under attack himself by the Others. Likewise, the Weeper's currently camped just past the Shadow Tower. No wildling expresses any doubt that Hardhome can be relieved, IIRC--not Tormund, not Leathers, not the clan chiefs in the Shieldhall. Why should Jon or us readers, for that matter, trust the opinions of Bowen Marsh and Queen Selyse, neither of whom have ever laid eyes on a single wight, over that of people who've been warring with the Others since before the NW's even aware of the threat and survived to tell of it? The wildlings are proud and boastful, true, but they've kneeled to kneelers out of fear of the Others. Yet they're willing to head beyond the Wall again to save those stranded at Hardhome.

Finally, consider the following political angles:

1) Jon must ensure that the wildlings stay loyal to him and, by extension, the NW. I imagine this would be rather harder to do if Jon's advocating alongside Marsh and Selyse that thousands of the free folk ought to be left to die.

2) What sort of commander would Jon seem to be in the eyes of the remaining rangers if his only response to a request for aid from a subordinate on a mission he assigned is to write off everybody as a lost cause without even an attempt to save his own men? Morale is important to any military organization, especially as there's a lack of a clear authority in the North to punish NW deserters.

3) The wildlings and Cotter Pyke's group from Eastwatch are not the only allies at Hardhome. Braavosi ships on loan from the Iron Bank, at least two after one sinks on the stormy voyage there, are in need of rescue from the ice zombies, too. When Tycho Nestoris returns to the Wall, if I were Jon, I wouldn't want to tell him that his generosity's been wasted with no efforts made to recoup his expenses. Not only would Nestoris be out a way to sail back to Braavos with the contract Jon negotiates, but he'd be left with a pretty poor impression of the NW's understanding of debt and obligation.

All in all, I'm very opposed to the view that a ranging to Hardhome is a suicidal folly with no merit. Though I do think Jon shouldn't be leading the expedition personally, even in this he's like many a good small unit commander promoted to higher rank and may have accounted for the wildlings refusing to follow anyone else. Ironically, Ramsay Bolton's personal challenge is about the only excuse the wildlings would accept for Jon delegating Hardhome to another, IMO.

Comparing Marsh to Burnside is a bit harsh on Burnside.

LOL! Good point. Burnside's a bad general but a good man. Though I see some of Burnside's military failings in Marsh, they're almost nothing alike in terms of personality. For one, I think Marsh a coward whereas Burnside has personal courage under fire, as do most American Civil War generals. And Marsh holds an unwarranted high opinion of his own military genius while, as you say, Burnside at least recognizes his inadequacy for army command. Which ranks Burnside above McClellan, Pope, and Hooker in self-awareness, lol, with Hooker being the best of that disappointing bunch. If only his inflated ego weren't so easily pierced. Who else deserves to be shamed here? Butler? All those fail commanders in the Shenandoah before Sheridan? On the Confederate side, Hood's too aggressive to be compared to Marsh, but Floyd and Pillow of Fort Donelson infamy come to mind as well as, scraping the bottom of the barrel, Braxton Bragg. :laugh:

[kissdbyfire]

Maia, for starters, I believe there are five to six thousand wildlings stranded at Hardhome. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of ADWD on hand, so if another poster could check my figures, it'd be much appreciated.

Found a few.

"Supposedly she made her home in a burrow beneath a hollow tree. Whatever the truth of that, she had a vision of a fleet of ships arriving to carry the free folk to safety across the narrow sea. Thousands of those who fled the battle were desperate enough to believe her. Mother Mole has led them all to Hardhome, there to pray and await salvation from across the sea.”

---

Jon saw signs of sickness too. That disquieted him more than he could say. If Tormund’s band were starved and sick, what of the thousands who had followed Mother Mole to Hardhome? Cotter Pyke should reach them soon. If the winds were kind, his fleet might well be on its way back to Eastwatch even now, with as many of the free folk as he could cram aboard.

---

Silence greeted his pronouncement. Then Othell Yarwyck said, “Lord Commander, there are thousands of—”

“—scrawny wildlings, bone weary, hungry, far from home.” Jon pointed at the lights of their campfires. “There they are. Four thousand, Tormund claims.”

“Three thousand, I make them, by the fires.” Bowen Marsh lived for counts and measures. “More than twice that number at Hardhome with the woods witch, we are told. And Ser Denys writes of great camps in the mountains beyond the Shadow Tower …”

---

Let them die,” said Queen Selyse.

It was the answer that Jon Snow had expected. This queen never fails to disappoint. Somehow that did not soften the blow. “Your Grace,” he persisted stubbornly, “they are starving at Hardhome by the thousands. Many are women—”

[Tagganaro]

Snip

Yeade, just wanted to say I love your posts as always and agree with everything you say. I've softened on the Hardhome mission over my second reread...It is a necessary expedition for any honorable institution set on stopping the Others.

The sheer numbers of Wildlings make the expedition completely worthwhile. Based on how the wildlings were able to travel through North of the Wall as a large pack with only stragglers being picked off by Wights, I'd estimate at most 150-200 possible deaths for a well-trained and armed military institution. Additionally, didn't a lot of the women and children leave on that ill-fated ship that was caught at Braavos trying to sell them into slavery? That could mean as many as 2000+ wildling men of fighting capability coming back with the NW, which I would think at the very minimum would be a net gain of 1500 men for the NW. Makes the mission seem very worthwhile from not only an emotional point of view, but also a logical one.