Jump to content

Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch


Barbrey Dustin

Recommended Posts

On 6/12/2017 at 8:42 PM, Barbrey Dustin said:

I feel like that the termination of Jon Snow by Bowen Marsh was appropriate.  The Lord Commander served for life so the only way to remove a crazy leader like Jon from power is to kill him.  That is their way of firing an unfit, incompetent,  treasonous commander.  It's been said before but I will repeat it here.  

Ramsay Bolton gave Jon the Pink Letter.  Bowen Marsh gave Jon the Pink Slip.  

  1. Jon was already a known deserter.
  2. He started making foolish decisions near the end.  The Hardhome mission was dumb and only wastes resources.
  3. The execution of Janos Slynt became unjust when Jon spared Mance Rayder, a man who has committed more crimes against the Watch and against the kingdom than Slynt has done.  Mormont showed mercy to Jon for desertion.  Jon could have shown mercy to Janos Slynt's initial insubordination.
  4. Sending Mance and the spearwives to rescue his sister, or what he thought was his sister, is an attack on a noble house of the realm.  Jon's agents murdered Bolton servants while enjoying Bolton hospitality and shelter.  This is little different from what the crows did to Craster and his family.
  5. Jon's announced plans to attack the Boltons is the last straw for any honest man of the Watch.  It violated the oaths of the watch and Jon knew it.  Instead of helping unite the north, Jon's actions made unity less likely to happen.

To sum up, I support Bowen Marsh and his decision to end Jon's appointment.  

  1. Jon was a deserter.  He's not alone in that others temporarily went to Mole's Town and came back but the better and more honorable brothers probably never did.  We know Jon had no intentions of coming back so his "trip" was not the same as that of another crow just needing to spend a few hours with the prostitutes and then coming back on duty.  Jon was leaving and not coming back.  Mormont was too kind to Jon and gave him a break. 
  2. True.  He has more in common in terms of personality with the wildlings and fell in love with them.  His decisions were affected.  Jon wasn't smart to begin with.
  3. That was a travesty to justice.  I blame Jon.  He could show mercy or execute Slynt.  But he should have executed Mance Rayder.  He let an evil man like Mance walk because he wanted to use him to fetch Arya out of Winterfell.  Jon put personal wants ahead of professional obligations and corrupted justice in the process.
  4. True.  Mance was acting under Jon's orders.  Jon is as much to blame.
  5. True.  Jon chose to fail in his mission to protect the realm.  Jon is a failure as lord commander. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

That wife is also lady of Winterfell and has a right to defend herself from torture and watch is obliged to help her in the same way they are obliged to help any other noble.

Lady of Winterfell because she's married with a Bolton. And the Watch is not obligated to help any noble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the support.  I assure you.  It brought me no pleasure to terminate Jon Snow but I had no other option to stop his raid on House Bolton.  That's water under the bridge as the saying goes in your world.  Lady Barbrey I now am in need of your advice on how to handle the mess left behind by my former LC. 

I should let the wildlings exit Castle Black.  I don't have the man power to stop them.  Then what?

  • Send a raven to warn the warden of the north?
  • What to do about the giant gone berserk?
  • Freeze, burn, or bury the body of Jon?
  • Write a letter to King Tommen's council to let them know what took place here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

A trial or an interrogation?

I don'y mean to be picky, but there's a difference between the two.

I'm trying to get a feel about just how deserters and traitors to the NW vows are seen and just what their legal standing is?

Can they demand a trial by combat, for example?

There may be complexities involved in the tradition.  Even guest rights likely had intricacies.  If it were an undeniable right then someone like Jorah could ask Ned for a trial by combat.  Ned can't refuse.  Gared could and Ned would have to oblige.  I think it's not as simple as that.  I also think there are inconsistencies in the novel as its wriiten.  Tyrion was not an anointed knight and he got his trial by combat.  I think the persons accused have to be anointed knights and the facts of the accusation unproven or at the least unclear.  A black brother caught away from the wall that far south is guilty of leaving his watch.  That's enough fact for those times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Thank you all for the support.  I assure you.  It brought me no pleasure to terminate Jon Snow but I had no other option to stop his raid on House Bolton.  That's water under the bridge as the saying goes in your world.  Lady Barbrey I now am in need of your advice on how to handle the mess left behind by my former LC. 

I should let the wildlings exit Castle Black.  I don't have the man power to stop them.  Then what?

  • Send a raven to warn the warden of the north?
  • What to do about the giant gone berserk?
  • Freeze, burn, or bury the body of Jon?
  • Write a letter to King Tommen's council to let them know what took place here?

 

Relax, you don't really have to worry about any of that. Tormund and the wildlings will have you and your cronies chopped up into Ghost's chow in no time. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bowen Marsh said:

There may be complexities involved in the tradition.  Even guest rights likely had intricacies.  If it were an undeniable right then someone like Jorah could ask Ned for a trial by combat.  Ned can't refuse.  Gared could and Ned would have to oblige.  I think it's not as simple as that.  I also think there are inconsistencies in the novel as its wriiten.  Tyrion was not an anointed knight and he got his trial by combat.  I think the persons accused have to be anointed knights and the facts of the accusation unproven or at the least unclear.  A black brother caught away from the wall that far south is guilty of leaving his watch.  That's enough fact for those times.

Nope. 

A Game of Thrones - Tyrion V 

"Is this how justice is done in the Vale?" Tyrion roared, so loudly that Ser Vardis froze for an instant. "Does honor stop at the Bloody Gate? You accuse me of crimes, I deny them, so you throw me into an open cell to freeze and starve." He lifted his head, to give them all a good look at the bruises Mord had left on his face. "Where is the king's justice? Is the Eyrie not part of the Seven Kingdoms? I stand accused, you say. Very well. I demand a trial! Let me speak, and let my truth or falsehood be judged openly, in the sight of gods and men."

A low murmuring filled the High Hall. He had her, Tyrion knew. He was highborn, the son of the most powerful lord in the realm, the brother of the queen. He could not be denied a trial. Guardsmen in sky-blue cloaks had started toward Tyrion, but Ser Vardis bid them halt and looked to Lady Lysa. 

Her small mouth twitched in a petulant smile. "If you are tried and found to be guilty of the crimes for which you stand accused, then by the king's own laws, you must pay with your life's blood. We keep no headsman in the Eyrie, my lord of Lannister. Open the Moon Door."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Relax, you don't really have to worry about any of that. Tormund and the wildlings will have you and your cronies chopped up into Ghost's chow in no time. ;)

It will be magnificent! They not only helped Jon to transform in his Super Saiyan God mode but they also arranged their own death sentences. It’s a win-win situation, at least for Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Relax, you don't really have to worry about any of that. Tormund and the wildlings will have you and your cronies chopped up into Ghost's chow in no time. ;)

 

Mayhaps so.  But I think they will want to ride out and rescue their "king" from Ramsay instead. 

Thanks for reminding me about that mangy mutt.  A few bolts from a crossbow ought to do the job.  I'll have me a snow white rug next to my bed.  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trials-by-combat are special rights for noblemen and knights. Commoners don't get such rights, they are not part of the ruling nor of (the properly armed) warrior class.

And trials are also only conducted if there is doubt whether the accused is guilty. And the person deciding that is the judge conducting the trial. If the king or your liege lord tells you you are guilty you are guilty, trial or not.

Guest right is something you extend to your peers. It can't really be used to harbor traitors or outlaws. If an outlaw or traitor knocks at your door you don't grant him guest right, and if you only learn of his crimes while he is your guest you throw him out of your hall. If you don't do that you become a traitor, too.

You can stress it somewhat as Lord Lyman Lannister when he extended guest right to Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaena at the beginning of the reign of Maegor the Cruel. But Casterly Rock is virtually impregnable, Maegor had other issues to deal with, and Aegon and Rhaena had done nothing wrong yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Mayhaps so.  But I think they will want to ride out and rescue their "king" from Ramsay instead. 

Thanks for reminding me about that mangy mutt.  A few bolts from a crossbow ought to do the job.  I'll have me a snow white rug next to my bed.  :rolleyes:

I don't know how that mangy mutt lasted as long as it did. For one it never should have been allowed in Castle Black to begin with and secondly it should have been destroyed after then recruit Jon Snow used it to intimidate other NW recruits in to interfering with Ser Alliser's training of young Sam Tarly. How Jon Snow was not punished for that treason I will never understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

It will be magnificent! They not only helped Jon to transform in his Super Saiyan God mode but they arranged their own death sentences. It’s a win-win situation, at least for Jon.

It's a big win for everyone at CB actually. It's crunch time now, no point wasting food and furs w/ a bunch of biased and prejudiced cowards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, El Guapo said:

I don't know how that mangy mutt lasted as long as it did. For one it never should have been allowed in Castle Black to begin with and secondly it should have been destroyed after then recruit Jon Snow used it to intimidate other NW recruits in to interfering with Ser Alliser's training of young Sam Tarly. How Jon Snow was not punished for that treason I will never understand.

That was tough love from Ser Alliser to Samwell.  I don't think the knight meant to permanently harm Samwell but Lord Lard was just lacking the talent for arms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

It's a big win for everyone at CB actually. It's crunch time now, no point wasting food and furs w/ a bunch of biased and prejudiced cowards. 

Come now.  The wildlings are no longer interested in defending the wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's a big win for everyone at CB actually. It's crunch time now, no point wasting food and furs w/ a bunch of biased and prejudiced cowards. 

True. Kill the cowards and let those who can actually fight and know the enemy taking care of the situation. Bowen and his men can be the new sentinels to decorate the Wall. If Westeros is lucky enough to have a Wall after was Bowen and his supporters did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, let's hand the food to undisciplined savages who fight with weapons made of bone and stone. I'm sure the wights will be impressed by that. Not to mention that, you know, half or more of these people are children, women, or old people, incapable of contributing anything to the fight against the Others. They are just additional mouths to feed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bowen Marsh said:

I also think there are inconsistencies in the novel as its wriiten.  Tyrion was not an anointed knight and he got his trial by combat.  I think the persons accused have to be anointed knights and the facts of the accusation unproven or at the least unclear. 

Tyrion got his trial by combat TWICE: in the Vale AND during his court trial in KL over murdering the king. (which is a lot more than shouting for the crown prince to come outside and die).  So, Tywin (who didn't want a trial by combat at all), Mace and Oberyn overlooked that Tyrion isn't a knight? I'd say your belief about it being a mistake on George's part is flakey, and that no you don't need to be an annointed knight at all. I do think it's a custom that came with the Andals though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

There may be complexities involved in the tradition.  Even guest rights likely had intricacies.  If it were an undeniable right then someone like Jorah could ask Ned for a trial by combat.  Ned can't refuse.  Gared could and Ned would have to oblige.  I think it's not as simple as that.  I also think there are inconsistencies in the novel as its wriiten.  Tyrion was not an anointed knight and he got his trial by combat.  I think the persons accused have to be anointed knights and the facts of the accusation unproven or at the least unclear.  A black brother caught away from the wall that far south is guilty of leaving his watch.  That's enough fact for those times.

Eddard was Warden of the North, acting in the name of the king. The Starks had been the power base in the north since before some Stark bent his knee.

Separating the different scenarios --- no one wrench fits every nut   --- meaning that sometimes there are variables.

Jorah fled his land because WoftN was gonna take his head   --- Jorah was involved in slaving ---- a no no.

Gared is a supposedly a deserter from the NW. Gared was spouting off gobbly gook that no one believed ---- Gared last seen by the readers in the Haunted Forest. He didn’t return to CB and somehow managed to get south of the Wall.

A novel/saga has a system. I dunna have to agree with it, all I gotta do is try to go with the flow of the story. If I look to deeply there are many flaws in the ASOIAF saga.

Guest right has its own rules. I walk into a lords hall and if the lord has his sword lain across his lap it means I ain’t welcome there.

The Lord invites me to eat at his bread and board means this night if I stay under his roof he will not harm me.

The ^ is my interpretation of Martin’s Westeros guidelines.

Getting into the various trials is a whole different ball of wax ---- as was exhibited when the High Septon got his grasp on Cersei in DwD.  Cersei had to do her walk of shame yet  Marg & the girls were released ---- the High Septon handed the girls over to Tarly's custody and Lord Randyll swore a holy oath to deliver them for trial when the time comes."

Trial by combat in Martin’s ASOIAF world also has its variables.

As to the termination of LC Snow --- it was mutiny. Shooooooooot not like it was the first time the NW offed an unpopular LC ---- remember Mormont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you are harboring traitors and enemies of the Realm you are a traitor, too. It is as simple as that. Women cannot join the NW, so Jon either has to sent them away or hand them over to Ramsay. What do you think Robert would have done if Queen Rhaella and her children had sought refuge at the NW? He would have demanded that the NW hand them over to him and the NW would have complied.

If Robert had asked, yes.  Ramsay isn't Robert.  He isn't even the Crown's representative, just another Northern Lord, and a lunatic at that.  If Roose Bolton, Warden of the North, wants them, then he should say so.  Also, Stannis's family and Mel have men protecting them, so turning them over would likely be difficult without the significant possibility of bloodshed.  Of course, the fact that there is a genuine dispute over who is actually in charge doesn't help matters.  In a situation like this one, even doing nothing means you are effectively taking a side.

The only person Ramsay might be entitled to is his wife, and that depends on what the laws, rules and customs are regarding mens' ability to torture and otherwise mistreat their wives, and what anybody else can do about it.  And we haven't been told what those rules are.  Otherwise, he isn't entitled to shit.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is what Mance and Melisandre talk about in her chapter, yes. But we don't know how the conversation continued after the chapter ended. It ends when Melisandre makes her offer to Jon that Mance will bring back his sister. He would have agreed to that and given Mance permission to do as Melisandre suggested (as Jon later recalls in his own chapter) but we don't know the specifics. Like, how long Mance and the women were supposed to wait in the Long Lake region, what they were to do if 'Arya' did not show up or if they missed her, etc.

Given that he felt he could do nothing for her when she was in the custody of the Boltons and only considered rescue when he was told she was fleeing in the wilderness, I find it difficult to believe that he would have countenanced a mission in Winterfell.  A rescue in the wilderness can be done discreetly and covertly.  One in Winterfell is much more of a direct confrontation, and I see nothing to indicate that Jon wanted such a confrontation, and much to suggest that he didn't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nevets said:

If Robert had asked, yes.  Ramsay isn't Robert.  He isn't even the Crown's representative, just another Northern Lord, and a lunatic at that.  If Roose Bolton, Warden of the North, wants them, then he should say so.  

How do you know that? You are just coming up with an idea that sounds convenient to you with no basis on the text. Ramsay Bolton isn't just some sort, he is the Lord of the Hornwood (by virtue of his widow, the Lady Donella), the Lord of Winterfell (by virtue of his wife, the Lady Arya), and the heir to the Dreadfort. He is a very important man.

His state of mind and sexual preferences are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Especially in light of the fact that Jon Snow pretty much knows nothing about those. How could he?

Ramsay is representing the Crown in this matter. This is pretty obvious in the letter. He has defeated and killed the traitor and pretender Stannis (or so he claims) and now he wrapping things up be dealing with the pitiful remnants of Stannis' forces and family.

The Watch would have handed Rhaella and her children to an Umber, Karstark, or Bolton just as well as to a Stark or Robert himself.

5 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Also, Stannis's family and Mel have men protecting them, so turning them over would likely be difficult without the significant possibility of bloodshed.  Of course, the fact that there is a genuine dispute over who is actually in charge doesn't help matters.  In a situation like this one, even doing nothing means you are effectively taking a side.

It is hundreds of watchmen against a dozen or a score of men-at-arms and a handful of knights in the retinue of Queen Selyse. It should be doable without spilling any blood or at least not spilling all that much blood.

Doing nothing would mean to provoke the Boltons even further, resulting in an attack on Castle Black conducted by thousands of Northmen fighting for Roose and Ramsay. That would be the end of the NW.

5 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The only person Ramsay might be entitled to is his wife, and that depends on what the laws, rules and customs are regarding mens' ability to torture and otherwise mistreat their wives, and what anybody else can do about it.  And we haven't been told what those rules are.  Otherwise, he isn't entitled to shit.

We know that wives essentially are the property of their husbands. We know that Ramsay marrying and subsequently murdering Lady Donella doesn't mean said marriage is seen as unlawful. We know wives swear to obey their husbands when they marry them and we know that husbands have a right to physically chastise their wives. We also know that there is no such thing as marital rape in Westeros.

That basically means that no man has any right to come between a husband and his wife. But even if there were certain situations where a brother or father could try to save his sister or daughter from the treatment she is suffering at the hands of her husband a sworn brother of the Night's Watch doesn't have any such rights. He no longer has any sisters or daughters after he swears his vow.

5 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Given that he felt he could do nothing for her when she was in the custody of the Boltons and only considered rescue when he was told she was fleeing in the wilderness, I find it difficult to believe that he would have countenanced a mission in Winterfell.  A rescue in the wilderness can be done discreetly and covertly.  One in Winterfell is much more of a direct confrontation, and I see nothing to indicate that Jon wanted such a confrontation, and much to suggest that he didn't.

I agree that he wouldn't have done anything if Melisandre hadn't suggested it but this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He gave Mance permission to try to save her and Mance certainly was under the impression that he should rescue Arya, never mind whether she is in or outside of Winterfell. Else the man would never have gone to Winterfell to risk his life and the lives of his companions in that place.

It is also quite clear that either Mance or one of the women blamed Jon Snow for the entire mission by telling Ramsay (before he wrote the Pink Letter) that they were there on Jon Snow's orders. Else Ramsay wouldn't have known about that and never written a letter to Jon.

Jon is also not aghast or pissed that Mance or one of the women told Ramsay that he sent them. He doesn't feel betrayed by them. He doesn't seem to have a problem with the fact that they went to Winterfell.

But even if he were - Ramsay now believes that Jon Snow sent Mance and those women into his castle to steal his bride, and that means that he has a right to strike back at Jon. It does not matter whether he is completely correct in that belief. Again, Ned could have been guilty of treason but that wouldn't have stopped Robb from rebelling against the Iron Throne. Why do we all tolerate Robb's actions or even applaud him but don't grant Ramsay a similar right? And in fact, Ramsay is taking a much more cautious and less confrontational approach than Robb. Robb never wrote a letter to Joffrey and Cersei so that they could meet his demands (like freeing his father). He just called the banners and went to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...