People who hate Jon..

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

yay somebody who agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm so happy!

I don't actually agree with you — you seem to think that Jon got what was coming to him, and I think that's absurd. For someone who claims to like Jon, you seem awfully eager to excuse his assassination.

[Dark_Rin]

I don't actually agree with you — you seem to think that Jon got what was coming to him, and I think that's absurd. For someone who claims to like Jon, you seem awfully eager to excuse his assassination

erm? what?

No.....

Can I not understand Bowen Marsh's reasons without agreeing with him? If I was in the NW, and I didnt have the luxury of reading Jons thoughts I would be of Marsh's disposition.

Is that so bad?

wow talk about heat lol. Maybe I'll just agree with the consenus from now on if all you get is stick for approaching something from an alternative angle :ack:

[Le.Chevalier.D'Eon]

What got Jon killed was the way he chose to react to Ramsey Bolton's letter. Bowen and his boys needed to stop Jon and the Wildlings from engaging the Boltons in combat.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

yay somebody who agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm so happy!

Ok I'm just going to wrap it up because I'm just repeating myself time and again.

1. I personally agree with Jon.

2. Even though he was in the right he could have handled it better.

-He could have kept close allies around him who were vocal in their support which would give March and his supporters something to think about, maybe even convince some of them to change their minds.

-He should not have sent all of the ones who would have backed him up away from him, he isolated himself which was a factor in his downfall.

And filled the other garrisons with people he couldn't trust, thus weakening the NW even worse when they desert?

-Being a leader of anything you need to inspire confidence and loyalty, he ultimately failed to do this and it cost him dearly. Its not just about making hard decisions you have to get men to willingly follow you, if you don't you end up with mutiny. (BTW i said semi-democratic in as much as you vote for your commander, not that you need consenus opinion)

-Marsh and his supporters would have been hostile at first despite the support of Aemon and others, but would they be so adamant Jon was wrong when well respected members of the NW agreed with him. Jon is still relatively new to the NW and very new to the position of LC, it would just make logical sense to have some of the more respected and experienced members of the NW around you to back you up. I know many wee gone but some remained and he sent them away.

Or maybe Marsh should have done his duty and listened to what his Lord Commander was telling him instead of still being mad that he lost the election and got his ass handed to him by people he has to make allies of.

Marsh would rather they all starved and died on the other side of the wall, adding 40,000 more wights to the Others force.

-There is no reason to beleive that Marsh was in the minority, all we get is Jon's view that he is right, no-where does Martin give us the opinion of the mass of NW.

-If Marsh wasn't in the minority then Jon should have made a greater effort to rally them to his cause, I'm not saying he should abandon it, I'm saying he could have done a better job at convincing the non-believers.

There's no reason to believe he wasn't. Again, Marsh is letting his feelings of inadequacy guide his judgment. Jon had no choice in this, yet he found a way to compromise. Marsh was unwilling to compromise.

-Its not about a popularity contest its about gaining the respect of your men and having your men carry out your orders.

-He explained it out sure, but only twice did he do this without getting angry and then sulky. He was dismissive of Marsh from day one, he certianly could have tried at the very least to understand. Hes not going to persuade Marsh by getting frustrated and reaching for his sword.

Marsh refused to look at the big picture, there's no way of explaining something better when they won't listen in the first place. Marsh is concerned with how many freaking turnips they have, not the fact that a massive undead army is gathering to attack.

-If Jon handled it perfectly why is he lying dead at this moment in time?

Marsh is no better than the men who killed Mormont and deserted. He didn't get his way so he tried to kill the LC.

-We dont know how many were involved in the plot, for all we know it could be the majority of the NW, an incident that could have been avoided.

Ok thats my point in a nutshell.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying your wrong but I personally don't feel like Jon made such a great job of being LC, he could have done better, maybe if he had he wouldnt be dying right now.

Jon can't control the fact that these men are former criminals and deviants. Jeor inspired loyalty and look where he is. At the end of the day it comes down to Marsh refusing to listen because he's more concerned with Wildlings eating his ham than the Others.

[Budj]

What got Jon killed was the way he chose to react to Ramsey Bolton's letter. Bowen and his boys needed to stop Jon and the Wildlings from engaging the Boltons in combat.

There is a theory that it was more related to the assassination attempt Cersei was pushing for way back when.

Also, while another poster pointed out to me that Jon's internal monolgue views this as breaking his oath...I think it could still be argued that he wasn't leaving his post and was instead intercepting a direct threat to the watch. He didn't have the hostages and he didn't want to bring down any NW-men to put this band-aid on the issue....it was either let Ramsay attack from the south or take him out first with an army of wildlings.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

What got Jon killed was the way he chose to react to Ramsey Bolton's letter. Bowen and his boys needed to stop Jon and the Wildlings from engaging the Boltons in combat.

And wait for an army far larger than theirs to attack the unprotected south? The only way they were going to defeat Bolton was by engaging first. Castle Black has no walls, it can't be closed up. Look at the damage 20 wildlings did, Bolton has a thousand times that number.

[Scipio Africanus]

What got Jon killed was the way he chose to react to Ramsey Bolton's letter. Bowen and his boys needed to stop Jon and the Wildlings from engaging the Boltons in combat.

Jon had no choice. The NW was threatened from the rear, something Castle Black could not withstand. Not doing anything just sitting there was certain death for him and probably everyone at the Wall. Marsh doesn't get that of course he only sees Wildlings taking over the place.

Marsh also didn't realize Jon had no built up enough support amongst the Wildlings that enough would come with him. Or maybe he feared that. But either way Jon showing up with a Wildling army would've really surprised whomever wrote the hate mail.

Ultimately though a lot of people think Marsh acted alone but I'm not so sure. If the hate mail wasn't written by Ramsay it could very well be that whomever wrote the letter was conspiring with Marsh to get rid of Jon before the Wildlings could march south.

[butterbumps!]

erm? what?

No.....

Can I not understand Bowen Marsh's reasons without agreeing with him? If I was in the NW, and I didnt have the luxury of reading Jons thoughts I would be of Marsh's disposition.

Is that so bad?

wow talk about heat lol. Maybe I'll just agree with the consenus from now on if all you get is stick for approaching something from an alternative angle :ack:

But see, that's just it. You haven't really approached this hypothetical from Bowen's POV in terms of him being "good but wrong" (Jon says something to this effect even). You approached it in terms of putting blame on Jon for not getting unanimous and unambiguous support for what he's doing. And what we've been doing is pointing you to all the passages that show us that Jon did actually try pretty hard to convince Bowen.

We were just challenging your opinions that posited that Jon is to blame for not being able to change Bowen's mind. It's not that you have an opinion that's against ours and ought to fall in line with the consensus (and for the record, Jon isn't even my favorite character), it's that I think you were putting too much blame on Jon given the character of Marsh which goes against some textual evidence. I think Hardhome and the baby swap offer more in terms of playing devil's advocate than not getting Bowen to agree.

[The Sleeper]

I think that what Marsh was moslty afraid off, was that Jon was trying to build himself a wildling army to claim his father's seat. Given his life-long prejudices, he could not imagine that Jon had legitimate reasons for doing what he did. Also, I disagree that Jon did not communicate his reasons to his underlings. He held regural meatings before every major decision, during which he received council and explained his rational.

[Le.Chevalier.D'Eon]

And wait for an army far larger than theirs to attack the unprotected south? The only way they were going to defeat Bolton was by engaging first. Castle Black has no walls, it can't be closed up. Look at the damage 20 wildlings did, Bolton has a thousand times that number.

You're not considering the fact that Ramsay's attack was avoidable. The threat was conditional. All Jon needed to do was assure Ramsay that should Reek and his bride arrive at the Wall, that he would notify Ramsey immediately. And equally important, that the NW will not stand in the way when Ramsay comes by to pick them up. Ramsay wants the NW to send them back. However, given that he wants them back badly, I think he would be amenable to having them picked up, as long Jon assures him that there would be no resistance.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

You're not considering the fact that Ramsay's attack was avoidable. The threat was conditional. All Jon needed to do was assure Ramsay that should Reek and his bride arrive at the Wall, that he would notify Ramsey immediately. And equally important, that the NW will not stand in the way when Ramsay comes by to pick them up. Ramsay wants the NW to send them back. However, given that he wants them back badly, I think he would be amenable to having them picked up, as long Jon assures him that there would be no resistance.

Jon didn't have either of them. He had no way to meet those conditions or even find out where they were without sending scouts through the areas Bolton occupied.

It doesn't matter if it was conditional in that light. Give me something you don't have or know anything about or i'll kill you all. Hrmmm hard choice.

[Scipio Africanus]

You're not considering the fact that Ramsay's attack was avoidable. The threat was conditional. All Jon needed to do was assure Ramsay that should Reek and his bride arrive at the Wall, that he would notify Ramsey immediately. And equally important, that the NW will not stand in the way when Ramsay comes by to pick them up. Ramsay wants the NW to send them back. However, given that he wants them back badly, I think he would be amenable to having them picked up, as long Jon assures him that there would be no resistance.

No one will deny "Arya" pulled Jon's emotional strings but you're talking about the Boltons, the ones who orchastrated the RW. Yeah I don't think their words and promises would've counted for much in the North anymore.

[Errant Bard]

The bloody obvious difference being, the thousands of people whom they let through the Wall can now help fight the wights, as opposed to turning into wights themselves. Derp?

Derp? Is that dome new edgy thing borrowed from decerebrated teens?

Anyway, you mean the wildings that will die going south, or the wildlings that will die on the Hardhome expedition to supplement the Watch men already dead, or the ones who will die in the Wall/Wildling conflict?

Anyway, I quite envy you gift for seeing the future of the plot and how the Wall will definitely not get overrun by wights now, just the same.

I don't think anyone is denying that Jon could have done this better. But at the end of the day, the Watch, day-to-day, is NOT a democracy, and what the LC says, goes.

Until he gets a knife between the shoulderblades, which cramps the style of about anyone. Even Ned. That's the problem with the "it's not a democracy" argument: if it's not, then murdering your local tyrant is just par for the course, when enough is enough. We did it by beheading around here, though. It's kind of more bloody than a vote, and less fair.

[butterbumps!]

You're not considering the fact that Ramsay's attack was avoidable. The threat was conditional. All Jon needed to do was assure Ramsay that should Reek and his bride arrive at the Wall, that he would notify Ramsey immediately. And equally important, that the NW will not stand in the way when Ramsay comes by to pick them up. Ramsay wants the NW to send them back. However, given that he wants them back badly, I think he would be amenable to having them picked up, as long Jon assures him that there would be no resistance.

That's not what Ramsay was asking for. He demanded that Jon send him Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, Val, "Mance's" baby in addition to Arya and Reek. You don't think Jon should have turned everyone over?

[ViennaGirl]

Huh, no he doesn't make a hard or meaningful decision at Queenscrown, he refuses to make one. He just stands there. Then Ygritte kills the man, and Summer saves his ass.

It's a manifest mischaracterisation. Nobody is asking for Jon to become evil, all that's discussed is that he is always spared from deciding something, following it through, and shouldering the consequences. Until ADWD (and no I don't mean the last chapter only.)

Because when you decide to not kill a man, or a woman for what it's worth, it's easy, you just have to stand there looking heroic, when you should have to deal with the consequences, and the actual hard choice that goes with it. Namely, at Queenscrown: you refuse to kill a man, fine, but you happen to not decide to fight your girlfriend to save him or yourself, no more than you decide to actually kill him, so you could save the Wall later on. The decision her is to die. BUT there is always a deus ex machina at the ready to save our dull hero.

Said girlfriend obviously dies conveniently before inconveniencing our dull hero. A hero can't kill a woman in cold blood, and it would be bad for a future Lord Commander to protect a wildling who happens to be his girlfriend (and also could be pregnant,) yes?

I disagree about Queenscrown - he thinks about how unfair it would be to kill the old man, tells Rattleshirt "NO," and turns away. That's a decision. He's decided not to kill the man. As far as he knows, he's going to get killed now. He struggles with the decision for a short time, and then decides to die, because this guy, in his view, is totally innocent.

It was different when he decided to break his vows with Ygritte - also a decision - he wasn't forced into it. He decided to do it - in this case, his life wasn't even immediately on the line. Maybe it seems like this decision turned out great, but he decided to go for it and then she got killed. That's a big consequence that he obviously has to live with and that gives him pain.

The Qhorin decision was more like the Queenscrown decision - it was immediate life or death for Jon. Having gotten his orders, he decided to live and kill Qhorin. I wouldn't say that didn't have consequences - he's viewed as a turncloak, which, along with some of his other decisions (wildlings, Stannis), plays a part in leading a group of NW to (try to?) assassinate him.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You're not considering the fact that Ramsay's attack was avoidable. The threat was conditional. All Jon needed to do was assure Ramsay that should Reek and his bride arrive at the Wall, that he would notify Ramsey immediately. And equally important, that the NW will not stand in the way when Ramsay comes by to pick them up. Ramsay wants the NW to send them back. However, given that he wants them back badly, I think he would be amenable to having them picked up, as long Jon assures him that there would be no resistance.

This "stay out of the realm's politics" goes both ways. Ramsay has no right to make demands on the Watch, and Jon has no obligation to agree to them.

[m_k]

The people Ramsay demanded (Except Reek and fake Arya) are all the guest of the watch, under protection of Jon so he just can not hand them over to Ramsay he had to defend them and only way to defend them is to attack Ramsay first, while he is not expecting. Just my opinion...

[Fantôme]

I agree with the two posts above and that's also why I didn't - and still don't- understand why the hell he claimed he was breaking his vows in front of all his men. Was there no better way to present it?

[Ragnorak]

I agree with the two posts above and that's also why I didn't - and still don't- understand why the hell he claimed he was breaking his vows in front of all his men. Was there no better way to present it?

I suspect that Jon was intentionally insulating the NW from his choice. This is a threat to the entire NW that needs to be responded to but that response can have dire consequences to the Watch as a whole if things go badly. Jon is basically insulating those who stay behind from his own actions by framing it this way.

Regardless of how much Arya emotionally plays into his decisions that doesn't change the threat. They sent out letters asking for help and Stannis responded. His wife and daughter are at the Wall because Stannis brought them there when he saved them from the Wildlings. Jon can't simply hand them over after Stannis just saved all their lives. Stannis isn't dishonorably hiding them behind the NW neutrality; he brought them there in the process of fulfilling the Realm's obligation to the Watch. Like Apple Martini said upthread, staying out of the affairs of the Realm is a two way street and Ramsay is the one violating it here (assuming he sent the letter which I know is an open item.)

[David Selig]

I'm just going to leave this by saying that I hope you have a good microbrew to sob in when Jon really does turn out to be the big hero. B)

I've known there's 99.5% chance Jon would be the big hero ever since I started reading the series in 2003 . It's a bit annoying, but no big deal at all. I am not reading for the "saving the world" part anyway.