Would the Night's Watch have benefitted from modernization?

[Orphalesion]

I think I have made it clear on these forums that I despise just about everything about the Night's Watch but nothing is about them is more suspect (to me) than the life time contract their recruits are made to sign.

 

As we see in ASoIaF, aside from a few deluded Northmen (and Royces) just about nobody who can afford otherwise joins them anymore; it's mostly (actual or wrongly convicted) criminals and the occasional noble who ended up on the wrong side of some feud, rebellion or scheme. 

 

I get the idea behind making them forswear their family rights is likely to keep the Night's Watch impartial but I see less sense in keeping the men celibate. What harm would a few trips to the brothel in Mole Town do? In fact, why not have a brothel in CB itself?

 

Then there's the obligatory lifetime membership. I mean, come on, no noble in their right mind would voluntarily choose to spend the rest of their lives marching up and down a frozen hellhole. So why not offer a sort of temporary service? Be a man of the Night's Watch for 2-5 years, you get a shiny crow patch by the end of it and perhaps some sort of honourary title. Plus it would relief the NW of caring for elderly NW men who can no longer fight or be otherwise useful. 

 

I know it would go against tradition, which is a big no-no in Westeros, but if they are so desperately starved for men power, why not think of alternatives?

[Caspoi]

1. It would still cause comflicting loyalties if they have family there, and it would not be good to have a lot of baseborn Children running around there. Moreover adultery would not exactly work towards keeping the morals and discipline of the Night's Watch.

 

2. Actually there would be many second sons who might want to join the Night's Watch for the glory and everything. They just need to improve their prestige and PR. If you made it all temporary you would loose the few who had actually joined you know. As for elderly men I might agree but you would have to make a difference between those who joined willingly and those who were conscripted.

[ConfusedCounselor]

There were plans to repopulate the gift with normal lords, which might have gone a long way in increasing the strength of the NW in case of an emergency. That would have been a useful modernization. So they were brainstorming for alternatives. Then Benjen got lost and Ned lost his head which put a stop to this plan.   

 

The celibacy part of the vow is already being interpreted as excluding whore visits, so that would hardly be new.

 

The temporary tour part of the watch is interesting, especially to increase the nobility percentage. It might conflict with the neutrality though. Might still be worth it though. Might even evolve to the Nothern equivalent of knighthood with the right propaganda.    

[aryagonnakill#2]

I think they could have openly allowed prostitutes, so long as the prostitutes didn't know who's children they were having, the boys could be sent to the wall at a young age, or farm the gift.

 

There's also the fact that a caring King could do a lot.  Take a grand trip to the wall recruiting men as you go, and bring them some musicians, and tell the realm you will pay for musicians to go to the wall for temporary time periods.

 

I also think the north should have colonized Hardhome, greatly reducing the burden on Eastwatch, and profiting from a wood trade with Bravos.

[Ser Patroclo]

No, because you are looking at it with the perspective of someone who *knows* the true reason for which the Nightwatch exists.

 

It's clear that in ancient time this threat was well known, in fact the Nightwatch hosted a huge army, bigger than most of the smaller

kingdoms composing Westeros at that time. So they didn't need any kind of incentive to man the wall, whereas guaranteeing the 

neutrality of such force was very important.

 

Today, the situation is different: neither Westerosy nor the Nightwatch know the true role of such ancient order, nor do they believe

there is any considerable threat north of the wall.

 

In order to 'modernize' something you have to realize its pitfalls first.

As far as most of Westeros knows - so far - the Nightwatch is a perfectly functioning penalty colony, and it makes little to no sense 

grant privileges and resources to criminals. The wall and the Starks are more than enough defences against the wildlings, as it was

proven by the several occasions in which the Starks did save the day when the Nightwatch helplessly allowed a wildling army through the wall.

 

 

So no reason to think of alternatives, until the WW will strike again.

[lancerman]

If they were smart, they would do something like all Knights, nobles, and maesters must serve one year in their prime to the NW and all lords must declare a certain amount of lowborn under their dominion, to serve two years.

So they would constantly get fresh men, they would be valuable people and the realm would have a vested interest in their safety (thus more money and better supplies), it would be seen as a right of passage, wouldn't have the taboos, etc.

Then all the high ranking officials are treated like KG and take the vows but they are given premier status in Westeros.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I think I have made it clear on these forums that I despise just about everything about the Night's Watch but nothing is about them is more suspect (to me) than the life time contract their recruits are made to sign.

 

As we see in ASoIaF, aside from a few deluded Northmen (and Royces) just about nobody who can afford otherwise joins them anymore; it's mostly (actual or wrongly convicted) criminals and the occasional noble who ended up on the wrong side of some feud, rebellion or scheme. 

 

I get the idea behind making them forswear their family rights is likely to keep the Night's Watch impartial but I see less sense in keeping the men celibate. What harm would a few trips to the brothel in Mole Town do? In fact, why not have a brothel in CB itself?

 

Then there's the obligatory lifetime membership. I mean, come on, no noble in their right mind would voluntarily choose to spend the rest of their lives marching up and down a frozen hellhole. So why not offer a sort of temporary service? Be a man of the Night's Watch for 2-5 years, you get a shiny crow patch by the end of it and perhaps some sort of honourary title. Plus it would relief the NW of caring for elderly NW men who can no longer fight or be otherwise useful. 

 

I know it would go against tradition, which is a big no-no in Westeros, but if they are so desperately starved for men power, why not think of alternatives?

 

First, celibacy isn't, in fact, required. It's not in the oath. They pledge to "father no sons", not "not to fuck".

Second, I don't think right now there's anything precluding volunteers from pledging their swords to the Lord Commander on temporary basis. Lord Snow even suggested exactly that: "They can wear any color cloak they choose, so long as they obey my officers as they would your own". Nobody volunteers, however, because, frankly put, it's a crappy duty on the gods-forsaken end of the world.

[Ser Patroclo]

If they were smart, they would do something like all Knights, nobles, and maesters must serve one year in their prime to the NW and all lords must declare a certain amount of lowborn under their dominion, to serve two years.
 

 

How is that smart allowing the lords and knights who swore allegiance to me to go into a 2-year bonding trip with the enemies of my kingdom accomplishing a task I am completely not interested in?

 

One day you might declare war to your enemies, and you need your own people to not have any bond toward those they need to kill, and even better if they feel hate and resentment.

 

Are you aware that national-service conscription was one of the instruments used in several countries to tighten the bounds among people belonging to the same state, so to inspire a sense of unity and nationalism? 

 

Are you aware that during the world war I/II people living on the boundary among warring nations were simply sent fighting somewhere else, exactly because they could have had loyalty issues?

[Orphalesion]

If they were smart, they would do something like all Knights, nobles, and maesters must serve one year in their prime to the NW and all lords must declare a certain amount of lowborn under their dominion, to serve two years.

So they would constantly get fresh men, they would be valuable people and the realm would have a vested interest in their safety (thus more money and better supplies), it would be seen as a right of passage, wouldn't have the taboos, etc.

Then all the high ranking officials are treated like KG and take the vows but they are given premier status in Westeros.

 

 

That's what I as thinking, that would have been, in my eyes, a much smarter way to setting it up from the very beginning rather than "come join us in the soul crushing cold for the rest of your life!"

[Orphalesion]

 

How is that smart allowing the lords and knights who swore allegiance to me to go into a 2-year bonding trip with the enemies of my kingdom accomplishing a task I am completely not interested in?

 

 

By the time of ASoIaF the Wall is something that belongs to the Seven Kingdoms, a more or less unified realm, not just the Kingdom in the North.

[Ser Patroclo]

 

By the time of ASoIaF the Wall is something that belongs to the Seven Kingdoms, a more or less unified realm, not just the Kingdom in the North.

 

By the time of ASoIaF, the Wall is just a penalty colony: there is no reason to improve over that. /thread

[Crippledtank]

Same problem with the KG really, these guys are suppose to put their lives on the line...., it'd be hard for mr nightswatchmen to defend the wall if he had a family to go home to.

Although I do like the idea.
I mean you could offer petty criminals short stints at the watch as punishment

[Orphalesion]

 

By the time of ASoIaF, the Wall is just a penalty colony: there is no reason to improve over that. /thread

 

I do not necessarily say the crown should improve the situation, but the Leadership of the Night's Watch could at least forward the suggestion to allow temporary service, they know that they are constantly starved for manpower.

 

Wether the crown would accept that proposal is a different matter, true.

[Universal Sword Donor]

 

By the time of ASoIaF, the Wall is just a penalty colony: there is no reason to improve over that. /thread

 

There is, if only because it's a failing penal colony and expensive to boot.

[Ser Patroclo]

 

I do not necessarily say the crown should improve the situation, but the Leadership of the Night's Watch could at least forward the suggestion to allow temporary service, they know that they are constantly starved for manpower.

 

Wether the crown would accept that proposal is a different matter, true.

 

Temporary service.. in a penalty colony?

 

And by the way the Night Watch doesn't have to ask anyone else to change its own rules: it is not King's Landing that imposed the oath on them, nor the strict interpretation they are giving to it.

 

 

 

There is, if only because it's a failing penal colony and expensive to boot.

 

It doesn't matter if it is a failing penal colony, all the people at the wall are meant to die there. And if possibly, they should also suffer. 

Nobody has any interest in the wall, except few deluded northerners, for the whole of westeros is already a superfluous expense and just a fancy way to sentence to death people.

 

Unlike the present-day, in which prisons are said to 'promote the rehabilitation for people inside', in the middle age prisons were meant as a deterrent for people outside it and nobody really cared about the criminals because 'they deserved it'.

[Orphalesion]

 

Temporary service.. in a penalty colony?

 

And by the way the Night Watch doesn't have to ask anyone else to change its own rules: it is not King's Landing that imposed the oath on them, nor the strict interpretation they are giving to it.

 

 

 

They still allowed voluntary lifetime service in their "penal colony" and I would think that if the Night's Watch changes their rules to temporarily contract nobles and knight sworn to the king, they would have to ask his permission.

Hey they are starved for man power, I'd give any incise to attract more recruits.

[ConfusedCounselor]

No, because you are looking at it with the perspective of someone who *knows* the true reason for which the Nightwatch exists.

 

It's clear that in ancient time this threat was well known, in fact the Nightwatch hosted a huge army, bigger than most of the smaller

kingdoms composing Westeros at that time. So they didn't need any kind of incentive to man the wall, whereas guaranteeing the 

neutrality of such force was very important.

 

Today, the situation is different: neither Westerosy nor the Nightwatch know the true role of such ancient order, nor do they believe

there is any considerable threat north of the wall.

 

In order to 'modernize' something you have to realize its pitfalls first.

As far as most of Westeros knows - so far - the Nightwatch is a perfectly functioning penalty colony, and it makes little to no sense 

grant privileges and resources to criminals. The wall and the Starks are more than enough defences against the wildlings, as it was

proven by the several occasions in which the Starks did save the day when the Nightwatch helplessly allowed a wildling army through the wall.

 

 

So no reason to think of alternatives, until the WW will strike again.

 

Or people are looking at it from the perspective of the Night Watch itself? The NW does not seem happy with its current state, LC Mormont was very worried, first Ranger Benjen stark has been having talks with his brother at Winterfell about modernization. Leadership seemed to think the watch is slipping and are concerned, even with only a vague notion that there is something more to the watch then mere Wildling control. 

From the Watch its perspective, looking at modernization and alternatives actually makes sense. And they did.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

 

I do not necessarily say the crown should improve the situation, but the Leadership of the Night's Watch could at least forward the suggestion to allow temporary service, they know that they are constantly starved for manpower.

 

Yes, they could have. I imagine the conversation between the Lord Commander and the King would've gone like this:

 

"Your Grace, will you allow your knights and lords to pledge their swords to the Wall for a limited period?"

"Wait what? They're allowed. They've always been allowed. Is there any statute prohibiting this?"

"Well, no. Not that I'm aware of."

"Here you go."

[Ser Patroclo]

 

Yes, they could have. I imagine the conversation between the Lord Commander and the King would've gone like this:

 

"Your Grace, will you allow your knights and lords to pledge their swords to the Wall for a limited period?"

"Wait what? They're allowed. They've always been allowed. Is there any statute prohibiting this?"

"Well, no. Not that I'm aware of."

"Here you go."

 

*and nothing changed*

[Orphalesion]

 

Yes, they could have. I imagine the conversation between the Lord Commander and the King would've gone like this:

 

"Your Grace, will you allow your knights and lords to pledge their swords to the Wall for a limited period?"

"Wait what? They're allowed. They've always been allowed. Is there any statute prohibiting this?"

"Well, no. Not that I'm aware of."

"Here you go."

 

Except that once you swear the oath it is for lifetime and most people in Westeros do think that once you take the black you aren't coming back. 

 

If you start to make it an official policy and start advertising it, it changes from "not strictly, technically forbidden" to "a viable and well known option"

 

See the difference? It's all about the advertising.

 

Also I doubt Robert would have been that knowledgeable about all that, the people south of the neck hardly ever thought about the wall.