Jarmel said:
Jon's back was against the wall, literally I suppose. If he didn't have those towers armed, Stannis was going to take them. That was perfectly clear. He explained repeatedly what he was doing and why to Marsh and it was common sense. He established his authority relatively early on with Slant. What else could he have done to make sure they survive and he was relatively well liked? Hold company picnics? The only thing I can think of is the ex-whore as a steward. He should have backed off on that but considering what his options are, I can't really blame him.
I will say this, one thing all the Starks have been guilty of is that they assume people are just as honorable as them when the reality is nowhere close.
Agreed. I don't really get the complaints about John being a terrible commander. He basically eliminated one of the two threats beyond the Wall singlehandedly by turning it into an ally, all the while weakening the Other threat by a) reducing the number of potential wights on the other side of the Wall and b) manning more parts of the Wall with his new converts. He managed his men such that risk on the part of the women was minimized, stations apart from him were managed by those he could trust, and those untrustworthy were kept under a close eye. He very carefully navigated a relationship with Stannis- something very few other commanders have had to deal with- preventing him from taking the Wall for his own while still establishing a dialogue well enough that, should Stannis succeed, the Wall would have a better mouthpiece in King's Landing than ever before. He even managed to benefit from Stannis' aid without going so far as to "take place in the struggles of the land."
Until the end, which brings me to the two problems I have with Jon's reign. His move to fight Roose Bolton was rash and presented to the public on logic that does not stand up to the rules of the Night Watch. That's not to say that fighting Roose might not have been the right move- he might have very well threatened the Watch and, in doing so, justified a campaign on the part of the Watch to attack him- but John's decision to do so was done so quickly and with so little thought that it felt completely out of character. Almost like Martin had to have him break character just to give Marsh and co. motive to carry out their deed. Had John presented the letter, given it some time, and explained why it was so necessary for Bolton to be dealt with, he might have won the Watch over. (or at the very least made them see the reason in his stance) Which brings me to my second issue- explanation. John's reasons are perfectly justified to those of us privy to his inner thoughts and he even explains them to a reasonable degree to Marsh on occasion, but he could have handled his communication with the Watch a bit better. Had he gone out of his way to appear to really consider the Watch's objections and completely explained his stances to everyone each time he made a call, I think he would have had far more allies. How could anyone really defend leaving the free men out there to die and come back to fight them when they could have them on their side?
So, all told, I think Jon's short rule was actually quite productive. He would have/maybe will made a fine ruler in time. It just remains to be seen how much his efforts will be undermined by his final rash action and the fallout from his assassination.
