Barbrey Dustin

Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

241 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, kimim said:

I think it's a gamble. The Watch is facing the certainty that the Walkers will turn every wildling at Hardhome into a zombie. Jon risks a few men to save himself the trouble of facing thousands of wightified wildlings. If he loses (and odds are he will) then he'll have to deal with thousands of wildling wights, plus a few NW zombies. If he wins, the Walker army is reduced by thousands. I'd take that gamble.

The Wall wouldn't be worth the effort it took to build if it can't stop a horde of zombies.  The Wall has powerful magic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kimim said:

If Jon is an oath breaker by virtue of siding against the Boltons, Marsh is an oath breaker by virtue of siding against the wildlings against his LC's orders. Jeor Mormont says it in Game: The primary purpose of the NW is not to fight the wildlings, but to protect the realms of men. Wildlings, as men, fall under the Watch's protection.

The wildlings are not part of the realms of men that Jeor spoke of.  The wildlings chose freedom over realm membership.  The wildlings at Hardhome, who knows if they will choose to swear fealty and service in exchange for the safety of the realm.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  But the realm has no responsibility to protect those who chose to disrespect its laws and refuse to obey the laws of the ruler of the realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

The wildlings are not part of the realms of men that Jeor spoke of.  The wildlings chose freedom over realm membership.  The wildlings at Hardhome, who knows if they will choose to swear fealty and service in exchange for the safety of the realm.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  But the realm has no responsibility to protect those who chose to disrespect its laws and refuse to obey the laws of the ruler of the realm.

But what about when Jeor offered to escort Craster (of all god forsaken people) and his wives south of the wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, Craster had been a friend of the NW for years and he never raided the other side of the wall. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Annalee said:

IIRC, Craster had been a friend of the NW for years and he never raided the other side of the wall. 

 

They didn't like him or trust him, yet they offered him refuge on the south side of the wall. But that is kind of the point, to do what is right for the realms of men. And he was a wildling. So, are you saying that they wildlings are ok as they as they are friends to the Watch? And the major majority of wildlings have not raided south of the wall. Only the few asshats like the ones that exist below the wall as well who rape, burn, and pillage. Just trying to see if I understand your comment correctly.

  • Dywen said Craster was a kinslayer, liar, raper, and craven, and hinted that he trafficked with slavers and demons. "And worse," the old forester would add, clacking his wooden teeth. "There's a cold smell to that one, there is."
  • Their host gave a nasty smile, showing a mouthful of broken brown teeth. "And what would we do there, serve you at supper? We're free folk here. Craster serves no man."
  • "Craster is his own man. He has sworn us no vows. Nor is he subject to our laws. Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night's Watch has other wars to fight."
  • "You are few here, and isolated," Mormont said. "If you like, I'll detail some men to escort you south to the Wall."
    The raven seemed to like the notion. "Wall," it screamed, spreading black wings like a high collar behind Mormont's head.
Edited by The Fattest Leech
Always with the bad spelling, I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

They didn't like him or trust him, yet they offered him refuge on the south side of the wall. But that is kind of the point, to do what is right for the realms of men. And he was a wildling. So, are you saying that they wildlings are ok as they as they are friends to the Watch? Just trying to see if I understand your comment correctly.

  • Dywen said Craster was a kinslayer, liar, raper, and craven, and hinted that he trafficked with slavers and demons. "And worse," the old forester would add, clacking his wooden teeth. "There's a cold smell to that one, there is."
  • Their host gave a nasty smile, showing a mouthful of broken brown teeth. "And what would we do there, serve you at supper? We're free folk here. Craster serves no man."
  • "Craster is his own man. He has sworn us no vows. Nor is he subject to our laws. Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night's Watch has other wars to fight."
  • "You are few here, and isolated," Mormont said. "If you like, I'll detail some men to escort you south to the Wall."
    The raven seemed to like the notion. "Wall," it screamed, spreading black wings like a high collar behind Mormont's head.

Craster committed his offenses on his side of the wall.  The other wildlings either committed theirs on the wall (attacking the wall, breaking their oaths, desertion) and raiding and trespassing on the kingdom's side of the wall.  Craster would be expected to live by the rules should he take the offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Annalee said:

Craster committed his offenses on his side of the wall.  The other wildlings either committed theirs on the wall (attacking the wall, breaking their oaths, desertion) and raiding and trespassing on the kingdom's side of the wall.  Craster would be expected to live by the rules should he take the offer.

Hmmm, I am not so sure that is what Jeor is saying here:

  • "Craster is his own man. He has sworn us no vows. Nor is he subject to our laws. Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night's Watch has other wars to fight.

But again, it seems that those wildlings that come south of the wall and break southron rules deserve southron/Night's Watch justice... but that means that the thousands of innocents that are still north of the wall, who have now paid fealty in the way of any treasures and even given children as hostage, some even kneeling, should not be held to the same contempt as the few idiots who do actually commit the raiding you mentioned? I mean, the Thenns are included in this group of wildlings, and the Thenns are rather "civilized" and have a more structured social order and culture (according to Southron ideals). Where do they fit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Hmmm, I am not so sure that is what Jeor is saying here:

  • "Craster is his own man. He has sworn us no vows. Nor is he subject to our laws. Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night's Watch has other wars to fight.

But again, it seems that those wildlings that come south of the wall and break southron rules deserve southron/Night's Watch justice... but that means that the thousands of innocents that are still north of the wall, who have now paid fealty in the way of any treasures and even given children as hostage, some even kneeling, should not be held to the same contempt as the few idiots who do actually commit the raiding you mentioned? I mean, the Thenns are included in this group of wildlings, and the Thenns are rather "civilized" and have a more structured social order and culture (according to Southron ideals). Where do they fit?

Wildlngs aren't all raiders and you have a good point there.  What crimes they do among themselves on their side is not under the jurisdiction of the lord commander.  The crimes they commit at the wall is a different matter.  The wildlings have a bad reputation and they don't all deserve it but they all must still be held accountable to the laws at the wall  if they come to the wall.  Getting back to Craster.  The man has broken no laws even by the laws in effect in the south except kinslaying.  He gives up his boys to the WW but many in the north are rumored to do the same before the Tagaryens came along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Annalee said:

Wildlngs aren't all raiders and you have a good point there.  What crimes they do among themselves on their side is not under the jurisdiction of the lord commander.  The crimes they commit at the wall is a different matter.  The wildlings have a bad reputation and they don't all deserve it but they all must still be held accountable to the laws at the wall  if they come to the wall.  Getting back to Craster.  The man has broken no laws even by the laws in effect in the south except kinslaying.  He gives up his boys to the WW but many in the north are rumored to do the same before the Tagaryens came along.

What crimes have the majority of wildlings committed at the wall? None of the few thousand Jon has let through have done anything wrong, and it was actually southron men (Stannis's men)  who had been raping and tormenting the wildlings who had already come through, and Stannis had burned them, or lopped their heads off (I can't remember for sure at the moment).

Oh yeah, I agree that Craster hasn't broken any "paper" laws (I'm tired and cannot think of the term), Craster has broken the moral/spiritual/religious laws... except for that kinslaying thing. That can be a pretty big thing in the south, but Jeor seems to know what Craster was doing and he was still going to take him south of the wall.

I agree that the wildlings would have to assimilate a great deal to live peaceably side by side with the those from the south, and if they don't, then they should be dealt with accordingly (which the law is not always death, oddly enough). But the wildlings also say that they chose and follow their leader, and this means the leader, like the Thenn dude who married a Karstark, will have to set the example. Same with the other clan chiefs. Jon is pretty firm with them as they pass, " I do not require men to kneel, but they do need to obey."

I know I don't think everything will be hunky-dory-smooth when TWOW comes out. I am expecting a rough few chapters in the beginning, but I think the overall bigger picture is going to work out for most.

 

....and with that, it is late as hell here. But good talk and maybe we will catch up tomorrow :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Annalee said:

Wildlngs aren't all raiders and you have a good point there.  What crimes they do among themselves on their side is not under the jurisdiction of the lord commander.  The crimes they commit at the wall is a different matter.  The wildlings have a bad reputation and they don't all deserve it but they all must still be held accountable to the laws at the wall  if they come to the wall.  Getting back to Craster.  The man has broken no laws even by the laws in effect in the south except kinslaying.  He gives up his boys to the WW but many in the north are rumored to do the same before the Tagaryens came along.

I'm intrigued. Can you provide any textual support to this claim? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

The Wall wouldn't be worth the effort it took to build if it can't stop a horde of zombies.  The Wall has powerful magic. 

That makes sense.  The HH mission was more about Jon's feelings for the wildings than a sensible defense strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

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

Many men would do as Jon did and let the world die for a beloved sister.  However those men should never, ever be in a position of power or command.  Military life is not for people like that.  They are not cut out for leadership.  Jon is not cut out for command.  Bowen did the right thing to stop him from leading the wildlings to Winterfell which would have been an act of atrocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ye Shall Be As Gods said:

Many men would do as Jon did and let the world die for a beloved sister.  However those men should never, ever be in a position of power or command.  Military life is not for people like that.  They are not cut out for leadership. 

   I do hope that you are speaking about the Night's Watch command. Even Ned Stark (as Warden of the North/Hand of the King - not Lord Commander) would have gone to extremes to save his family.

2 hours ago, Ye Shall Be As Gods said:

Jon is not cut out for command.  Bowen did the right thing to stop him from leading the wildlings to Winterfell which would have been an act of atrocity.

    I do hope that you mean atrocity because of him breaking the NW law! The Bolton are using atrocity, flaying, hostages, and terror to rule the North. Not Honor and Tradition. Also, they brought many Freys to the North which the North despises for killing their Sire as a guest. In the North killing someone as his guests is comparable to Kinslkaying. A lot of Northerners will /did join King Stannis, a Southerner, to fight against the Boltons. Imagine if/when they discover that Sansa Stark or Brandon Stark 'came' back to fight the Boltons? A great part of them would join them.

   Now Bowen did the right thing because if Jon does die and returns from death ( a lá Beric Dondarrion), he will be free from the NW vows, allowing him to treat the Bolton's abomination directly without problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   I do hope that you are speaking about the Night's Watch command. Even Ned Stark (as Warden of the North/Hand of the King - not Lord Commander) would have gone to extremes to save his family.

If Ned had done that he would have been wrong, too. Reason of state dictates that family and friends came behind more important things. That's why Robb does not exchange Jaime for Sansa (and Arya). They simply are not worth enough as girls. Only the loss of Winterfell and the apparent loss of Bran and Rickon makes this a mistake later on.

A king or leader who puts his heart and personal feelings before the needs of his men and vassals in a war is not likely to win that war.

And for a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch or even a humble black brother it is quite clear that they can only think about the mission. Nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2017 at 3:02 AM, Lord Varys said:

Harboring Stannis, accepting his help against the wildlings, and providing him with the means to survive at the Wall wasn't treason.

Even if it was, there is nothing he can do as Stannis has more men and Jon does not have the means to forcefully remove him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2017 at 9:13 AM, Makk said:

But ultimately it is the right thing to do. The Boltons and Cersei will never be able to protect the realm against the Others, and they will never unite it

This.

Almost goes hand in hand with this quote by Jeor

When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?

Because if you ask me, yes i think it matters a great deal who sits on the throne. We see this when Tywin says they will send no support to the wall until Janos Slynt is elected Lord Commander and again after Jon's letter to Tommen, which only tips Cersei off to the fact that he is still alive and then plots to kill him for sole reason that he is the bastard son of Ned Stark and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Livesundersink said:

Even if it was, there is nothing he can do as Stannis has more men and Jon does not have the means to forcefully remove him.

Well, he could die in the attempt, couldn't he? But I agree, he can use the argument that he didn't have the strength to stop Stannis and he had the moral obligation to extend guest right to the man who came to the Wall to save the NW from the wildlings. But that's it. He has no right to do more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Ned had done that he would have been wrong, too. Reason of state dictates that family and friends came behind more important things. That's why Robb does not exchange Jaime for Sansa (and Arya). They simply are not worth enough as girls. Only the loss of Winterfell and the apparent loss of Bran and Rickon makes this a mistake later on.

A king or leader who puts his heart and personal feelings before the needs of his men and vassals in a war is not likely to win that war.

And for a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch or even a humble black brother it is quite clear that they can only think about the mission. Nothing else.

That is exactly why Robb lost.  He put his desire for Jeyne ahead of his oaths to his most powerful ally.  And let me add, an ally who fulfilled every part of his agreement in the pact.  Jon's transgressions are pretty similar.  He placed his love for Arya ahead of his duty to protect the realm.  Understandable why his brothers would want to stop him from doing further harm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

That is exactly why Robb lost.  He put his desire for Jeyne ahead of his oaths to his most powerful ally.  And let me add, an ally who fulfilled every part of his agreement in the pact.  Jon's transgressions are pretty similar.  He placed his love for Arya ahead of his duty to protect the realm.  Understandable why his brothers would want to stop him from doing further harm.  

Yeah, although I'd say that Robb most definitely didn't deserve to die the way he did. He had no reason to demand further support from the Freys but the idea that his insult to them justifies the Red Wedding makes little sense to me. Walder could have openly declared for the Lannister and met Robb in battle. One could also say that an assassination of Robb outside of guest right protection could also have been acceptable but not the cold-blooded murder of thousands of other men.

Jon's case is different in the sense that he neither is nor can he pretend to be a sovereign king or even a lord. He is the head of a military order that is supposed to be neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now