Jump to content

Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch


Barbrey Dustin

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It appears that Gared had a trial. Bran was young and George obfuscated what actually was asked to Gared and said by Gared. But Ned asked Gared questions, and Gared gave answers. It's but a few lines in Bran's first chapter that covers it, but I'd say that was indeed a trial. Bran simply wasn't focused on it, and George didn't want us to know what Gared said exactly.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes 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?

Well, Gared was already apprehended (aka arrested). The Warden was called to judge him. And actually interrogation is part of the trial. It isn't done before a trial, unless to confess voluntarily before trial. Let's look at Tyrion's trial for the murder of Joffrey. Tyrion was arrested, put in a cell, and not interrogated at all. Any interrogation would have been done during the trial. All he was ever asked prior to the trial was whether he'd confess or not. Same at the Eyrie.

I think a deserter may ask for a trial by combat, yes. Not sure he'd win though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for a trial.

Nobody asks for the reasons for desertion, and why should they? There is no excuse for this kind of behavior in the world they are living in.

Ned talked with Gared but this wasn't a trial. It was the last talk with a man Ned intended to behead. Listening to a man's last words is part of the Stark concept of honor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Well, Gared was already apprehended (aka arrested). The Warden was called to judge him. And actually interrogation is part of the trial. It isn't done before a trial, unless to confess voluntarily before trial. Let's look at Tyrion's trial for the murder of Joffrey. Tyrion was arrested, put in a cell, and not interrogated at all. Any interrogation would have been done during the trial. All he was ever asked prior to the trial was whether he'd confess or not. Same at the Eyrie.

I think a deserter may ask for a trial by combat, yes. Not sure he'd win though.

I'm not quite certain what we read in the prologue was a trial, but I'll not argue the point!

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no need for a trial.

Nobody asks for the reasons for desertion, and why should they? There is no excuse for this kind of behavior in the world they are living in.

Ned talked with Gared but this wasn't a trial. It was the last talk with a man Ned intended to behead. Listening to a man's last words is part of the Stark concept of honor.

That sounds more like my recollection that scene.

Off to :read:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I'm not quite certain what we read in the prologue was a trial, but I'll not argue the point!

That sounds more like my recollection that scene.

Off to :read:

Well, the very idea that a deserter of the NW has a right to a trial is pretty much ridiculous. If that was the case then pretty much every deserter could invent or find some excuse as to why the fact that he deserted is just a huge misunderstanding. Or wiggle himself out of the way via a trial-by-combat. Only knights and noblemen have a right to the latter, in any case. But most likely not as black brothers. Commoners don't get a trial-by-combat.

Usually a deserter also doesn't come back to the Wall. But even coming back is no guarantee that you are forgiven. Anybody captured as a deserter likely is going to swear again that he'll return to the Wall if he can only keep his head.

Jon could save his head because important people believed his story and he came to save the NW from Styr and his men. But he was seen with the wildlings and people certainly had a reason to disbelieve his rather fancy tale about Qhorin Halfhand giving him a secret mission and the order to kill him. It could just as well been that Jon murdered Qhorin to save his own life, deserted to the wildlings, had a good fuck, and then got second thoughts when he was supposed to kill his friends at the Watch and decided to return to the NW. Who can know what's really true? We do, but Jon's word doesn't have to convince anyone.

But still, the fact that he came back, helped save the Watch from Styr and then took command of the Watch at Castle Black in the battle against Mance Rayder after Donal Noye died greatly helped him dismiss the notion that he was a deserter.

But any normal case is much simpler. If you leave your post without permission by your superior officers you are a deserter. Sure, if you are on a mission and get attacked and can't get back when you are due you are not just killed on sight when you return. But if people see you with the wildlings you are a deserter. And the same goes if you are seen somewhere down south in an inn or a village.

And presumably the Watch notifies Winterfell and other castles that this or that watchman has deserted so that they can deal with them accordingly.

Aside from official business or visits to family and friends the Lord Commander has authorized a black brother has no business south of the Wall. And people know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no need for a trial.

Nobody asks for the reasons for desertion, and why should they? There is no excuse for this kind of behavior in the world they are living in.

Ned talked with Gared but this wasn't a trial. It was the last talk with a man Ned intended to behead. Listening to a man's last words is part of the Stark concept of honor.

Agreed. Members of NW don't have trials for desertion. I do wonder if desertion was always a death sentence tho. I'm talking early on when people still joined the NW freely. I wonder if death for desertion didn't start being a thing until more and more criminals starting showing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Agreed. Members of NW don't have trials for desertion. I do wonder if desertion was always a death sentence tho. I'm talking early on when people still joined the NW freely. I wonder if death for desertion didn't start being a thing until more and more criminals starting showing up.

The story of Lord Ryswell and his son and his son's companions who were returned to the Wall by the lord to be buried in the ice of the Wall itself so that they would not leave the post in death which they left in life makes this very unlikely.

Especially when people joined the Watch freely every man doing so would have known what that meant. He knew it was a noble calling and a duty for life. Desertion would have been a rare thing, one imagines, but the punishment would have been always the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The story of Lord Ryswell and his son and his son's companions who were returned to the Wall by the lord to be buried in the ice of the Wall itself so that they would not leave the post in death which they left in life makes this very unlikely.

Especially when people joined the Watch freely every man doing so would have known what that meant. He knew it was a noble calling and a duty for life. Desertion would have been a rare thing, one imagines, but the punishment would have been always the same.

Yeah, it probably always has been death for desertion. One would think back when the NW was actually a honorable duty and people joined freely, desertion wouldn't be a issue and the punishment wouldn't be as harsh, as death. Once they started getting criminals from all over Westeros, you'd see a higher rate of desertion and a need for the desertion equals death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Yeah, it probably always has been death for desertion. One would think back when the NW was actually a honorable duty and people joined freely, desertion wouldn't be a issue and the punishment wouldn't be as harsh, as death. Once they started getting criminals from all over Westeros, you'd see a higher rate of desertion and a need for the desertion equals death. 

I'm not sure about that. Keep in mind that while the Night's Watch was a noble calling there also were the Hundred Kingdoms and then later the Seven Kingdoms, and those (petty) kingdoms were always at war with each other. There wouldn't have been many common criminals at the Wall but many a man up there would have been expected to serve with or under a man whose family were the mortal enemies of his family.

The betrayals, ruthless killings, murders, atrocities committed by this or that side would have been both more numerous and worse than in the Targaryen days. Yet the Night's Watch prevailed, and the men there did their duty.

This wouldn't have worked if the men up there continued to see themselves as members of their birth families. And to enforce that change desertion would always have to be a crime punishable by death. Because desertion would basically mean to go back to your birth family, to abandon the common good (which to serve you pledged yourself when taking the vow) in favor of your egoistical and baser needs and desires. And allowing people to get away with that would set a very bad example. And it still does.

It is a pity that George doesn't really play more with that thing. We had a Targaryen at the Wall but a Baratheon, Lannister, Bolton, Frey would also have been an interesting choice, providing us with other characters struggling with their choices and loyalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure about that. Keep in mind that while the Night's Watch was a noble calling there also were the Hundred Kingdoms and then later the Seven Kingdoms, and those (petty) kingdoms were always at war with each other. There wouldn't have been many common criminals at the Wall but many a man up there would have been expected to serve with or under a man whose family were the mortal enemies of his family.

The betrayals, ruthless killings, murders, atrocities committed by this or that side would have been both more numerous and worse than in the Targaryen days. Yet the Night's Watch prevailed, and the men there did their duty.

This wouldn't have worked if the men up there continued to see themselves as members of their birth families. And to enforce that change desertion would always have to be a crime punishable by death. Because desertion would basically mean to go back to your birth family, to abandon the common good (which to serve you pledged yourself when taking the vow) in favor of your egoistical and baser needs and desires. And allowing people to get away with that would set a very bad example. And it still does.

It is a pity that George doesn't really play more with that thing. We had a Targaryen at the Wall but a Baratheon, Lannister, Bolton, Frey would also have been an interesting choice, providing us with other characters struggling with their choices and loyalties.

You could've still had a punishment for desertion in the beginning  years, without it being death tho.  The NW wasn't a place to send your defeated enemies to at its beginning, it was something you joined freely.  Early on once they started getting defeated enemies of all the warring kingdoms, they could've started to see the amount of desertion rising and saw a need for a harsher punishment. I'm just thinking out loud with all this tbh. Like I said before, death could've always been the punishment desertion. We just  know very little about the history of NW, minus some huge events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

You could've still had a punishment for desertion in the beginning  years, without it being death tho.  The NW wasn't a place to send your defeated enemies to at its beginning, it was something you joined freely.  Early on once they started getting defeated enemies of all the warring kingdoms, they could've started to see the amount of desertion rising and saw a need for a harsher punishment. I'm just thinking out loud with all this tbh. Like I said before, death could've always been the punishment desertion. We just  know very little about the history of NW, minus some huge events. 

Oh, well, in the very early days this might be the case. But once the institution as we know it established itself - and when wars among the kingdoms became more common as the memory of the Long Night grew fainter and fainter - things would have developed into the the form as we know it. Then the NW would have been a very noble calling for every man in Westeros but whoever went there cut his ties to his family.

In the very early days all the First Men in the continent would have recovered from the Long Night, working together more or less amiable, not attacking each other. Back then, it seems that the solemn vow of the NW stretches back as far as that. The Black Gate beneath the Nightfort knows the vow, and I doubt they informed it about long after the Wall was built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

I'm not quite certain what we read in the prologue was a trial, but I'll not argue the point!

I'm not certain either... but it doesn't seem different from say Tyrion's trial, except Tyrion's trial took more days, because there were more witnesses against him...

Trials are not much of anything to speak of in Westeros. It's basically "you're accused", witnesses corroborate the accusation, as accused you either confess or call forth witnesses to corroborate your story but don't count on fidning them or have the judges be swayed by them, judgement follows and then execution. "Defense" doesn't really come into it much, does it?

So, take Gared. Apprehended and accused of "desertion". The witnesses are those who caught him. So, what's Ned Stark gonna ask if this had been a trial to Gared?

"Why are you here?", "Did you desert?", "What were your reasons?" and "Do you have any witnesses to corroborate your story?" Well we can imagine how that convo went, right?

Ned finds him guilty, because whatever Gared would have said he would have taken it as a confession. Off comes his head.

A "trial" or an "interrogation" basically ends up being the same thing, no? I can see how Ned himself would have regarded it a standard trial. Just look at what the BwB calls "trials" when still under Beric Dondarrion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 wasn't a deserter, he was acting on the orders of a superior officer. It doesn't matter what assumptions some may have of Jon, because he was telling the truth, and most of his NW brother's believed him.

2. Hardhome was a toss up. I understand what Jon intended to do, and it makes sense, deny the army of the dead more troops, and add more troops to the realm's of men. I also understand the opposition to the mission. However, at this point Jon is LC and it's his decision.

3. Slynt was a snake in the grass and Jon knew it. He had to kill Slynt to serve as an example to the other conspirators that insubordination to the LC meant death. However, Mance should have died too. There was no reason to believe he would be anything other than a threat to the NW. Jon should have ordered his exectution. 

4. UNLESS, Jon was privy to a plan where the rightful King and his advisers needed Mance to rescue fArya in order to use her to rally the North against the Boltons, who were viewed by most of the North as unlawful usurpers of Stark rule. What better way to bring unity and order to the North than by assisting the rightful King of the Seven Kingdoms in rescuing one of the last surviving Stark children. Jon wasn't on board with rescuing fArya just for personal reasons, there was a political implication behind the operation.

5. There is nothing in the NW vows that says the NW has to remain neutral in any political upheaval. The Boltons were viewed by most of the North as unpopular, cruel, backstabbing, treasonous, usurpers. If you wanted to unite the North, the best thing you could do would be to fight the Boltons. The only reason the North hadn't fought the Boltons yet was because the Boltons retained much of their strength, they were reinforced by the Freys, and the threat of the Lannisters and Tyrells marching north to support them, however unlikely that may have been. However, as we later find out, plans were already in motion for the North to deal with the Boltons and the Freys. Jon marching south to deal with what them himself would have just helped in uniting the North, not hampered it. And the only way for sure that Jon would have broken his vows would have been if after defeating the Boltons, he named himself Lord of Winterfell. As it stands, Jon never broke his vows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2017 at 3:51 PM, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys, you asked for quotes on Jon thinking about the survival of the watch and humankind in general. I'm usually more than happy to provide quotes, but to paraphrase what you said to another poster a while back, it's not my job to do your work for you. You've read the books, right? 

As to your extremely silly argument, "why doesn't Jon love Ramsay then", I honestly have nothing to say to that other than it's one of the silliest arguments I've ever read. 

ETA: And the argument that if you make a vow you either live by it or die, there's no middle ground is also extremely silly imo. That type of rigidity doesn't equal honour but stupid inflexibility.

 

There is no honor in what Jon did.  The reason he broke his oaths are stupid reasons.  Compromising the defense of the wall for his sister was stupid.  Not only will she die as a result of his idiot decisions but so will other people.  It was  better to leave the Arya situation alone and focus on his job and that might possibly save thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Was it Jon's intention to simply rescue a girl in need and then to promptly return her to Ramsay?  Because if that was his plan then his crimes are lessened a bit.  We know it wasn't.  Jon's behavior was so offensive that just the matter of letting Mance escape punishment was very wrong.  

Mance was Jon's dog.  Jon sent him to get Arya and the buck stops with Jon.  

Why would he return the girl back to ramasy if girl is running away from him? He would have returened the girl if she wanted to return otherwise the case is same as alys karstark just that girl this time would be jon's sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, the snow dragon said:

Why would he return the girl back to ramasy if girl is running away from him? He would have returened the girl if she wanted to return otherwise the case is same as alys karstark just that girl this time would be jon's sister.

Because it's his wife. She has a duty toward him, and nobody in the Watch has anything to do with that.

Alys Karstark was not married, and in theory was free to leave Karhold whatever she wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon is given a fair chance, even by Ramsay. Ramsay makes it clear that Stannis is defeated and Jon's hopes have gone to nothing. But he doesn't say his life and the lives of his men are forfeit now. He demands that Jon return his wife, his Reek, and also hand Stannis' daughter, wife, and lover over to him. Those are not impossible or even unreasonable demands. There are a lot of insults in this letter, too, but there is no talk about a trial or anything. Jon isn't even accused of a crime. Ramsay merely makes it clear that due to his actions he is seen as an enemy combatant now and will be treated as such unless he meets Ramsay's demands.

That is actually pretty soft. Jon deserves to die for the whole Mance thing but Ramsay does not insist on that.

Well, then he is just a moron. Being a moron doesn't help you. And besides - it is quite clear that Jon would never warn the Boltons about anything because he considers them his enemies. That is why he warns Stannis about Arnolf Karstark's planned betrayal as soon as he hears about that. That is another instance where he drops the neutrality thing.

But if Jon really did not want Mance to bring him back his sister if it involved going into Winterfell he should not have sent him or explicitly forbidden him to do such a thing.

We have Melisandre's own POV when they make the Mance plan. There is no hint whatsoever that she had an ulterior motive to send Mance to Winterfell. In fact, they both believe he is going to find 'Arya' in the Long Lake region.

I mean, what ulterior motive could Mance have to go to Winterfell. It is quite clear in the Theon chapters that they want to save 'Arya'. And that they do, although quite a few women are killed in the process of that.

And the chance that Mance - if he had been the one to get 'Arya' out - would then not bring her to Stannis or to Jon at the Wall is also a pretty silly idea. What else could he do?

Thank you, but this isn't really a question where you can make things appear this or that way. There are a bunch of facts and those fact make it justified that Jon Snow was killed as a deserter and traitor to the Night's Watch. People who don't want to see it that way twist things around to make them fit their view. And they are more dishonest than Jon himself who actually accepts his responsibility for Mance and his actions. That is why he declares war on the Boltons. He wanted to save Arya, after all. And he threw the first stone.

Ramasy didn't give fair chance. He acused jon for specific crimes and made demands that cannot be met and made it very clear what will be the punishment if such demands aren't fulfilled.jon dosent have authority to hand over queen, her daughter and malisandre not to mention that they are under guest rights and jon doesn't have reek or bolten wife.ramasy doesn't even give jon a chance to clarify his side. He wasn't given a trial he was handed a verdict.even a kingslayer and kinslayer is given a trial(terion)that are bigger crimes than supposed abduction of a lords bride.and ramasy said that life of jon's may be (not certain) spared if his demands are fullfiled.that is a death sentence. 

Now you admit that they were certain that arya will be found in long lake region. So why would jon give specific order to not to go to Winterfell. Anyone will assume that mance will search lake region and then will return.you can call that stupidiy or you can call that naivity but it doesn't change the fact that Winterfell incident was not jons intention. 

About the ulterior motives, in theon chapters theon himself thiks that abel and co are trying to find ways to infilterate Winterfell like theon did himself.that can be a motive. There are killings in Winterfell that attributes toward discord between bolten alliance. Some of those murders are hinted to be done by spearwifes.so that can be another motive. Simply gathring information is also a great motive.

The are no facts that are so clear. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a discussion for so long. Nobody have clear facts in universe or outside.jon reads letter  declare his intentions infront of hundreds men.many sideds with him, some not but it actualy a handfull of people who thinks jon had to die.it is not even clear that those handfull thought him oathbreaker and deserter or simply murdered him because they thought it was the best way to survive themself.

The murderers themselves say "for the watch"and not traitor or oathbreaker and dont show any contempt toward their lord commander. People who dont want to see that way also twist that facts and make it a righteous and noble act taken by faithfull members of watch on a traitor and oathbreaker. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

Because it's his wife. She has a duty toward him, and nobody in the Watch has anything to do with that.

Alys Karstark was not married, and in theory was free to leave Karhold whatever she wanted.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I'm not certain either... but it doesn't seem different from say Tyrion's trial, except Tyrion's trial took more days, because there were more witnesses against him...Trials are not much of anything to speak of in Westeros. It's basically "you're accused", witnesses corroborate the accusation, as accused you either confess or call forth witnesses to corroborate your story but don't count on fidning them or have the judges be swayed by them, judgement follows and then execution. "Defense" doesn't really come into it much, does it?

Spoiler


So, take Gared. Apprehended and accused of "desertion". The witnesses are those who caught him. So, what's Ned Stark gonna ask if this had been a trial to Gared?

"Why are you here?", "Did you desert?", "What were your reasons?" and "Do you have any witnesses to corroborate your story?" Well we can imagine how that convo went, right?

Ned finds him guilty, because whatever Gared would have said he would have taken it as a confession. Off comes his head.

A "trial" or an "interrogation" basically ends up being the same thing, no? I can see how Ned himself would have regarded it a standard trial. Just look at what the BwB calls "trials" when still under Beric Dondarrion. 

 

 

Ah, the legal situation in Westeros.

So fraught with inconsistencies, so ripe for multiple interpretations on any given point.

It seems like yesterday I took silk in KL, yet it was many years ago, after all.

 

What I mean to say is that I haven't a clue what actually constitutes a trial in GRRM's world.

My impression is that deserters from the NW are executed out of hand, when I return from a long day at work I'll investigate the question thoroughly, not to debate the point, but to satisfy my curiosity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Ramasy didn't give fair chance. He acused jon for specific crimes and made demands that cannot be met and made it very clear what will be the punishment if such demands aren't fulfilled.jon dosent have authority to hand over queen, her daughter and malisandre not to mention that they are under guest rights and jon doesn't have reek or bolten wife.

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.

Quote

ramasy doesn't even give jon a chance to clarify his side. He wasn't given a trial he was handed a verdict.even a kingslayer and kinslayer is given a trial(terion)that are bigger crimes than supposed abduction of a lords bride.and ramasy said that life of jon's may be (not certain) spared if his demands are fullfiled.that is a death sentence.

Jon is an enemy combatant now. He is a proven traitor who attacked House Bolton through Mance. His side of the story is irrelevant. Robb Stark also didn't ask King Joffrey for 'his side of the story' when he called the banners of House Stark and led a rebellion against the Iron Throne without ever knowing whether his lord father was innocent or guilty of the crimes he was accused.

Tyrion gets a trial because he is merely accused of the crime without obvious proof of his guilt. Had everybody seen him stab Joffrey he would have been slain on sight in the hall, either by the Kingsguard or somebody else.

Quote

Now you admit that they were certain that arya will be found in long lake region. So why would jon give specific order to not to go to Winterfell. Anyone will assume that mance will search lake region and then will return.you can call that stupidiy or you can call that naivity but it doesn't change the fact that Winterfell incident was not jons intention. 

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.

One assumes they talked about that, too. And it is quite clear that Mance has some sort of infiltration scheme in mind when he asks for pretty women.

Jon's intention definitely was to steal Ramsay Bolton's legal bride. That is a fact. It does not happen where he wanted it to happen, it matters where it did happen and it matters that it was done on his orders.

You are arguing against the moral compass of the characters involved. Jon doesn't use this ridiculous defense. He does not hide behind Melisandre's skirts or Mance's broad shoulders. He knows that Mance's actions were his actions. He does not deny that he was involved and that those things happened according to his orders. That is why he calls upon the help of the wildlings to declare war on the Boltons.

If he was following your reasoning he should have denied to have anything to do with the entire thing, pointing out that he merely sent Mance to Long Lake, and claiming that he is not responsible for what the man did at Winterfell.

Don't you realize how cowardly and hypocritical that sounds? No (noble-)man in this series would act in such a manner, especially not a man who actually tries to live up to the chivalric and noble values they are all espousing. And that is very much the case for Jon Snow. He is no coward. He tells the truth. He does not hide behind technicalities or half-truths.

Quote

About the ulterior motives, in theon chapters theon himself thiks that abel and co are trying to find ways to infilterate Winterfell like theon did himself.that can be a motive. There are killings in Winterfell that attributes toward discord between bolten alliance. Some of those murders are hinted to be done by spearwifes.so that can be another motive. Simply gathring information is also a great motive.

For whom? For Mance's grand army? If they were gathering information then for Stannis and Jon. But they are infiltrating Winterfell to figure out a way how to get 'Arya' out. That's pretty obvious.

Quote

The are no facts that are so clear. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a discussion for so long. Nobody have clear facts in universe or outside.jon reads letter  declare his intentions infront of hundreds men.many sideds with him, some not but it actualy a handfull of people who thinks jon had to die.it is not even clear that those handfull thought him oathbreaker and deserter or simply murdered him because they thought it was the best way to survive themself.

We have little reason to believe that a man like Bowen Marsh - who isn't exactly the most courageous man in the world - would kill the Lord Commander if he wasn't pretty sure that he could count on the support of the majority of the black brothers after the fact. Jon sends most of the men who may truly been his men away to other castles. We have no idea how many of the men at Castle Black are Marsh's nor have we any indication that even the men who were technically leaning towards Jon were okay with his desertion.

No sworn brother of the Night's Watch can support him in his declaration of war against the Boltons. Not a single one. And they can also not stand aside and allow him to lead the wildlings to war.

Quote

The murderers themselves say "for the watch"and not traitor or oathbreaker and dont show any contempt toward their lord commander. People who dont want to see that way also twist that facts and make it a righteous and noble act taken by faithfull members of watch on a traitor and oathbreaker.

Bowen Marsh is a Northman himself. He didn't hate or despise Jon Snow. As Northmen he was raised to serve the Starks of Winterfell. And Jon was the elected Lord Commander. It is pretty clear that it was no small thing for Marsh to kill him.

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...